phd advisor relationship

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

Senior Research Development Coordinator

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 10 December 2021

Managing up: how to communicate effectively with your PhD adviser

• Lluís Saló-Salgado 0 ,
• Angi Acocella 1 ,
• Ignacio Arzuaga García 2 ,
• Souha El Mousadik 3 &
• Augustine Zvinavashe 4

Lluís Saló-Salgado is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Twitter: @lluis_salo.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Angi Acocella is a PhD candidate in the Center for Transportation & Logistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. LinkedIn: @angi-acocella.

Ignacio Arzuaga García is a PhD student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. LinkedIn: @ignacioarzuaga.

Souha El Mousadik is a PhD student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Augustine Zvinavashe is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

When you start a PhD, you also begin a professional relationship with your PhD adviser. This is an exciting moment: interacting with someone for whom you might well have great respect and admiration, but who might also slightly intimidate you.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03703-z

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged .

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Related Articles

Why you need an agenda for meetings with your principal investigator

• Research management

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Brazil’s postgraduate funding model is about rectifying past inequalities

Correspondence 09 APR 24

Declining postdoc numbers threaten the future of US life science

How two PhD students overcame the odds to snag tenure-track jobs

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Associate or Senior Editor (clinical microbiology and infectious diseases)

Do you love science but feel that a career at the bench isn’t enough to sate your desire to learn more about the natural world?

London, New York, Pune – Hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Performance Analyst

Reporting into the Head of Performance, OA agreements, the role will support the business transition to open access.

London – hybrid working model

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis Part time  | Temporary | Arbeitsort: Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE_Zentrum für Molekulare Ne...

Hamburg (DE)

Personalwerk GmbH

Postdoctoral fellow in structure determination of membrane proteins using cryo-EM

The Institute of Biomedicine is involved in both research and education. In both of these areas, we focus on fundamental knowledge of the living ce...

Gothenburg (Stad), Västra Götaland (SE)

University of Gothenburg

Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Neuroscience

Postdoc in Neuroscience at McGill University. Explore neocortical circuits & plasticity with electrophysiology & 2-photon optics. Apply by July 31.

Montréal, Quebec (CA)

McGill University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Advising Guide: Building a successful relationship with your advisor

Conducting research meetings with your advisor, holding regular meetings, planning your agenda before the meeting, sample meeting agenda topics, taking notes, keeping a research notebook or journal, if you are co-advised, why have a co-advisor, allen school considerations for co-advising, additional planning if co-advised, joint or separate meetings.

Schedule regular meetings with your advisor (usually once per week) even if you think you have nothing to talk about, you haven’t made much progress, or you are worried that you will be wasting your advisor’s time. Often that is exactly when it is most important to have a meeting. Note that a meeting need not be long or even fill the allocated time slot. Everyone, including your advisor, is happy to suddenly have a few extra minutes if the meeting ends early.

Regular meetings will give you more ideas, connections, and resources to achieve your goals. It also keeps your advisor up-to-date on your progress and helps them keep your project in mind. Often when there isn’t much progress, a meeting is a time for your advisor to help you stay energized and excited about the project since they are likely to take the long view.

Set up a regular meeting time that works for you both every quarter since your schedules will likely change. Offer several possibilities to respect the other person’s needs and preferences. (Some advisors opt to use an on-demand calendar, where you can reserve free meeting slots. In this case, claim a slot every week.)

If your advisor needs to skip a meeting and you still need guidance, follow-up with them by email to discuss the issues or to reschedule the meeting.

Outside regular meetings, you and your advisor should establish norms for asynchronous communication (e.g., email and slack). Sometimes a quick exchange with your advisor between meetings can save you a lot of time. Don’t hesitate to reach out.

Consider preparing a weekly progress report and sending it to your advisor before your meetings. This will help you make the most of your time together. It also forces you to review your work and think about its consequences, in addition to helping you and your advisor track your longer-term progress.

Write down an agenda and send it to your advisor in (sufficient) advance of the meeting; you could also bring two hardcopies to the meeting. Some students use a slide deck to guide the discussion. Prioritize the items on your agenda. Importantly, focus first on items that are most likely to help you make progress between the current and next meeting.

An agenda for a research meeting (depending on the research area and the specific individuals involved) may include any or all of the following items:

Recap of the goals and state of the project. Like you, your advisor is juggling numerous responsibilities and context switching constantly throughout the day. Don’t be upset if your advisor cannot remember what was discussed in your previous meeting. Over time, you’ll learn how to quickly recap events to stay on track.

An update on what you’ve accomplished since the previous meeting and which previous goals have been met. Include, for example, what code you’ve written, new results and ideas, experimental results, etc. Share graphs showing these results, if applicable. Be sure that you’ve already thought through what the results mean, why they make sense, and how they move the project forward. Getting new results up until the last minute does not leave you time to consider whether these results are meaningful or even correct.

Papers you have read or talks you have attended that are relevant to your research and what you learned from them. Teach your advisor something!

Problem-solving strategies. Brainstorm with your advisor about how to solve problems, discussing in detail whatever you are stuck on or don’t understand. Key advisor added value is helping you figure out a way forward when you are stuck. Be as specific as possible when explaining sticking points. Consider writing this part out for yourself ahead of the meeting. Sometimes even just articulating what you are stuck on can help you get past whatever is blocking you. In addition, don’t hesitate to ask for help with low-level details, such as code reviews or debugging help, and your advisor will let you know if they can or are willing to work at this level.

Gaps in your knowledge or advice on what you should be learning in the short and longer term. Your advisor can help you figure out how to fill those gaps by suggesting classes you should take, papers/books you should read, experts you should speak with, etc.

Feedback on progress . Take initiative in asking your advisor for feedback on your research progress. Be receptive and open to hearing constructive feedback, and remember not to take it personally. Try to see such input as a way to help you do the best possible work and achieve your maximum potential. Focus on asking and answering clarifying questions so that you can think through the validity/utility of the feedback more carefully after the meeting.

Longer-term goals. Discuss research questions and directions that you’d like to explore in the future.

At the end of the meeting, if appropriate, briefly communicate what you understand to be the takeaways and action items going forward.

List of goals you want to accomplish before the next meeting, as well as longer term goals. Let your advisor know about any class-related or personal obligations that will impact your productivity in the upcoming week.

It is essential to record what was discussed. Usually you will write brief notes during the meeting. Otherwise, do so immediately after the meeting, while your memory is fresh. Share the summary with your advisor and keep a copy for your notes. This ensures you are on the same page and understand one another. It is particularly useful when writing a paper about your research. It will also spur both your and your advisor’s memory for future work.

It is highly recommended that you keep a research notebook or journal . (This can be a physical notebook, a set of text files, or some other form.) Whenever an idea comes to you, while reading papers, talking with colleagues, or daydreaming, jot it down. It doesn’t have to be fully conceived or considered. Use the journal to record:

Meeting notes

Calculations you have done and lemmas/theorems you have proved

Short- and long-term goals and timelines

Lists of papers you need to read

Ideas for future research

Questions you want to resolve

Topics you need or want to learn

Relevant conference deadlines and submission plans

Co-advisors provide different perspectives, different personalities, and different strengths and weaknesses, giving you the opportunity to take the best from each. They can expand your personal networks in complementary ways. When doing interdisciplinary work, it can be especially useful to have advisors with different kinds of research expertise.

There is also a cost to having co-advisors. It may mean more meetings, or more trouble scheduling meetings. The advisors may each have their own requirements for what you need to achieve before you can graduate. In some cases they may offer contradictory advice. (Example: you present an idea to each advisor. One says, “Great idea. Before you proceed further, you should do some quick experiments to validate it, to avoid wasting time if it turns out to be a dead end..” The other says, “Great idea. Before you proceed further, you should work through a proof to make sure that it is sound, to avoid wasting time if it turns out to be a dead end.” In such a situation, you will want to have a discussion with both of them to figure out how to prioritize the two alternatives.

There are many ways to have a co-advisor, and one (or more!) can be added at any point during your Ph.D. Your co-advisors will be co-chairs of your doctoral committee. They may split your funding or there may be a primary and secondary advisor (with the primary often providing the funding). These are things you should feel free to discuss at the outset with both advisors.

To formalize a co-advisor use the advisor change form .

Many Allen School students are co-advised. As just stated, benefitting the most from having multiple advisors requires some additional planning on your part. While the exact setup of your co-advising relationship will be unique to you and the advisors, there are some common items to consider early on and then revisit periodically.

Know each advisor’s relative strengths, keeping in mind that you might need different kinds of help from them at different points. If one advisor funds you on the main project you’re working on, that may be a different type of advising relationship than you have with a co-advisor who provides expertise in a particular topic.

Ensure that both advisors are aware of what you are working on and what each of their colleague’s contributions to your work will be. This will help with allocating time, resources, and credit.

You and your co-advisors should decide whether to meet together or separately. There can be benefits to both approaches.

Meeting together helps keep the project status in sync but can result in long discussions between the advisors, rather than with you. (Occasionally these discussions are illuminating about life as a faculty member.)

If both advisors are present, you will need to proactively manage the meeting agenda to clarify what you want or need from the meeting.

Meeting separately might duplicate discussions, make it harder to sync up about next steps, or require more bridging communication on your part, but it can help you benefit directly from each advisor's unique expertise and working styles (if you have well chunked-out pieces of feedback that you need from both).

If you and your co-advisors decide on separate meetings, still plan on meeting as a group occasionally (at least once or twice a year). Always copy both advisors on all progress reports, meeting agendas, and meeting notes.

It is still important to follow specific guidelines for conducting effective meetings.

Check in regularly with your co-advisors to assess how co-advising is working and whether their combined perspectives are leading to more effective research.

How to get good advising: information about the grad student - advisor relationship

First Year | Building a Relationship | Rights and Responsibilities | Ongoing Conversations Troubleshooting | FAQ | Growth Mindset

How to Manage Working Relationship with Your Advisor

The relationship with your advisor is one of the most crucial aspects of the doctoral training. The typical graduate student spends a lot of time worrying about what their advisor thinks. One negative comment from an advisor can affect a student’s morale. It is therefore important to understand the role of your advisor and manage working relationship.

It has been proposed that the importance of the advisee-advisor relationship is based on two elements. The department is the “ primary socialization agent ” at the doctoral level and the advisor acts as the interface between the student and the department. Not only do advisors contribute to the socialization of the students, but they also improve the quality of their doctoral education and provide opportunities post-graduation.

Maintaining Your Relationship with Your Supervisor

While your success as a PhD student depends on many factors, having a negative relationship with your advisor can make your journey difficult. In order to increase your chances of success in graduate school, maintaining a healthy relationship with your PhD supervisor is crucial. So how do you go about ensuring that you have maximum chances of success?

• Set ground rules for the advisee-advisor relationship. This relationship is both professional and personal. It can also involve negotiating with difficult individuals (who have your best interests at heart). Therefore, it is helpful to establish regular meetings, agendas, and responsibilities early on.
• Ask the right questions. If you are stuck at any point in your graduate education, you should bring this up with your supervisor. During the PhD journey, learning gaps can occur and at this point you should talk to your supervisor and share ideas.
• Do not suffer in silence. It can seem daunting, but if your relationship with your supervisor is dysfunctional , and you have tried everything you can to make it work, then it is time to consider switching supervisors. Take note, however, that switching supervisors often will not be immediately welcomed by the school.

Improving the Relationship

There many types of advisee-advisor relationships and it may be helpful to know which one you are in. Navigating your relationship with your advisor means that you should constantly improve this relationship. While it may seem like you only need common sense in this aspect, this is not often the case.

• Bad relationships with your advisor can be fixed using simple rules, and this starts with planning. Some things that you should bring up include who will set your meetings and how often these meeting should occur. With this in mind, you should understand different typologies of this relationship.
• Communicate constantly. The importance of open communication with your PhD advisor cannot be overstated. In order to communicate effectively, you need to state the facts; clarify your thoughts about the situation; and explain your goals and discuss your idea to resolve the situation.
• Respect your supervisor’s input and if it contradicts with your own views, then politely explain why. This also goes the same for your PhD advisor. There must be open communication all through out.

Tips for Handling Difficult Situations

Facing a difficult situation with your advisor may seem tough. However, when you both agree on the same goals and timelines, difficult situations can be resolved easily. Here are some tips to get you started:

• Allow your PhD advisor to give you suggestions in setting the direction for your research. After all, you chose your advisor because of his or her expertise. Don’t deny the suggestions in a disrespectful or unprofessional way.
• Adopt the art of “ principled negotiation ,” which is composed of four steps: 1) separating the problem from the person; 2) focusing on interests, rather than on positions; 3) creating options that allow for mutual gains; and 4) using objective criteria.
• Consider getting outside help, for instance, school authorities in order to resolve the conflict. Many PhD students are reluctant to approach department chairs because they believe that this is tantamount to admitting dysfunction. However, you should remember that deans and department heads have a role in resolving these types of conflicts.
• When all else fails, dealing with a bad situation should include documentation, discussion of the issue with another person, and deciding whether or not you are considering to change your advisor.

Have you experienced such a situation? How have you resolved conflicts with your advisor. Share your experience in the comments section!

thanks for sharing information.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Career Corner
• PhDs & Postdocs

When Your Thesis Advisor Asks You to Quit

I was two months into the third year of my PhD when it happened. In…

How a Mentor Can Be the Wizard to a Researcher’s Success

Have you ever had a mentor? Alternatively, have you ever been a mentor to others?…

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Reviews

Are Peer Reviews Reports Being Written By Early Career Researchers?

Peer review seeks to ensure scientific integrity. All good journals use peer review to decide…

Tips on Developing an Effective Undergraduate Research Program

Undergraduates can partake in research and they do so regularly. These opportunities are good for…

4 Crucial Tips on How to Effectively Mentor Graduate Students

What is the Role of a Mentor? In graduate schools, students often find themselves in…

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding the Dynamics of the PhD-Advisor Relationship

The journey towards earning a PhD is both academically challenging and personally enriching. Along this journey, one of the most crucial relationships a student develops is with their PhD advisor. This article aims to shed light on the dynamics of the PhD-advisor relationship, offering key insights for students.

An advisor plays an integral role in shaping the academic trajectory of a PhD student. But, what exactly is the role of PhD advisors ? To help you understand, we provide insider information that elucidates the advisor’s role and the expectations placed on both the student and the advisor.

A common question PhD candidates might have is, “How many PhD students can a professor take?” This depends on various factors, including the professor’s capacity and the institution’s regulations. Get detailed insights on how many PhD students a professor can take , and understand how this influences the supervision quality.

The relationship between a PhD student and a professor extends beyond just formal guidance. With time, it evolves, and there’s a lot to learn from this dynamic. Get a first-hand account from a PhD student-turned-professor , sharing experiences and perspectives on the journey from being a student to becoming an academic guide.

The PhD-advisor relationship is a pivotal aspect of your academic journey. By understanding its dynamics and intricacies, you can foster a more productive, beneficial relationship that contributes positively to your research experience and academic growth.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

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/

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, how to develop an excellent phd supervisor relationship.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 24 April, 2020
• Researcher Career Development

How to develop an excellent PhD Supervisor relationship 

The working relationship that a PhD student has with their supervisor can be the most important factor for determining the success and enjoyment of their doctoral journey. Unfortunately, however, this is an aspect of PhD life that students are seldom alerted to before beginning their research.

When searching and applying for PhDs, people often look for supervisors who are well known in their field or who have conducted renowned, key research in the subject area. However, although this can lend prestige to your own PhD, it is very important to realise that if their working style strongly conflicts with yours or if they do not offer adequate support to their PhD students, then their academic accolades will do little to help you in your own research.

This article outlines some important things to consider, both when you’re selecting your supervisor and PhD programme, and when you’re doing your doctoral research.  

Finding the right PhD supervisor

If you’re just starting to apply for PhDs and thinking about where you would like to undertake your research, pay attention to who will be working with you as your supervisor and/or principal investigator. Spend some time clarifying how you work best, what you hope to get out of your PhD, and how someone can best support you to do this. Bear these criteria in mind as you set out to select a supervisor – how and whether they can support your research will ultimately be more important to your research than impressive credentials.  

This will be the person whom you should have the most contact with throughout your PhD. They will be the one to help you develop your thesis, and give you guidance and feedback to progress successfully in your research. As such, it is crucial that you select someone you will be able to work with well.

When you have an idea of someone you would like to work with, email them personally before you begin your application. Introduce yourself, tell them about your academic goals and enquire if they are currently taking on any supervisees. Try to start a conversation with them and begin some preliminary discussions about the research you intend to do.  

If they are open to discussing further details of doing a PhD with them and in their department/institution, ask them how they usually work with their students, outline any concerns you have and enquire about the support that you can expect to receive as a doctoral candidate there.  

By this stage, you should have some idea of how responsive and supportive they are, and whether or not they would be interested in supervising you (and whether you would like to work with them). Some may even agree to talk to you via phone or video chat, or connect you to some of their current students so you can find out more about working with the department.

Selecting the right supervisor and establishing some contact before you begin your application can be a lengthy progress so make sure you plan well ahead. It may feel time consuming at first, but remember that a PhD can take three to seven years to complete (depending on where you’re studying and whether you are studying full- or part-time). This is a long time to be working closely with someone so investing time early on to find the right fit for you will pay off in the long run.  

Making the most of your PhD supervisor relationship

When you start your PhD, you still need to figure out the best ways of communicating and working with your supervisor. This working relationship will be unlike any other you’ve had: a supervisor is not like a teacher who will give you assignments or mark your work; neither are they like a work boss to whom you are accountable. They are there to guide and support the development of your thesis, not someone you report to as you would in a school or workplace.

For many doctoral students, the PhD is an independent project (unless you are working as a part of a wider PhD research team under the management of a PI; your work life and responsibilities may then more closely resemble a job). As such, you need to determine what kind of guidance you need, what working structure would help you progress effectively, and what type of feedback would be most helpful for you. Discuss these issues early on in your PhD with your supervisor so that expectations are clear on both sides.  

Students who are at the beginning of their PhD and need more guidance may meet their supervisors more regularly (e.g. once a month) and prepare some kind of work in advance to be discussed during the meeting (e.g. an essay or literature review). As you progress, some students may like more frequent communication, for instance on a weekly basis; while others may prefer working independently and check in only as necessary.  

Whatever the frequency and mode of contact you decide on, be sure that this is clear to both yourself and your supervisor. Remember too, that academics often juggle multiple responsibilities and may be supervising several researchers at the same time. The supervisor is not there to ‘look after’ you and you need to be responsible for following up on meetings or sending reminders to them if needed.

Finally, know that a good supervisor will often also offer you pastoral support for your wellbeing. The PhD has its own unique challenges and you may find yourself having to deal with more than just the academic demands of the research. Try to find out from your supervisor early on in your PhD what kind of support is available to you; either from them, the department or the university.

Be upfront and honest with them about aspects of your personal life that may affect your work, such as any family or mental health issues. A good supervisor should support you, find the most effective ways for you to work alongside these issues and direct you to further support if required.

It may take a while to settle into a comfortable working arrangement with your supervisor, but rest assured that once expectations are clearly set and managed, this relationship can be one of the most rewarding aspects of your PhD. You’ll be challenged, have the opportunity to share insights with an experienced academic and be led to make your own excellent research discoveries.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Finding the Right PhD Supervisor

Charlesworth Author Services 02/08/2021 00:00:00

Finding the Right Place to do your PhD

Charlesworth Author Services 25/05/2021 00:00:00

Dealing with a Difficult Supervisor in research and academia

Charlesworth Author Services 05/04/2022 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize webinar: Researcher Mental Health - Module 1 - Researcher wellbeing

Charlesworth Author Services 09/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: Researcher Mental Health - Module 2 - Let's talk about anxiety and depression

Bitesize Webinar: Researcher Mental Health - Module 3 - Let's talk about imposter experiences

Bitesize Webinar: Researcher Mental Health - Module 4 - Tackling the imposter experience and other insecurities

Four top tips for making the most of your PhD

Charlesworth Author Services 10/01/2020 00:00:00

How to find your best work rhythm as a PhD student

Charlesworth Author Services 07/05/2020 00:00:00

Finding and maintaining the Motivation to keep Writing during your PhD

Charlesworth Author Services 22/01/2020 00:00:00

Voices of the Global Community

The advising relationship is at the core of academic advising.

Elizabeth M. Higgins , University of Southern Maine

Student learning is at the center of what advisors do, with the development of an effective advising relationship as the gateway to that learning experience.  According to Campbell and Nutt (2008), academic advising is a “powerful educational strategy to engage and support student learning.”  Through the educational process of advising, an advisor can guide students through meaning-making, skill identification and development, critical thinking, scaffolding of knowledge, and acquisition of transferrable skills (Lowenstein, 2009).  Academic advisors can be the transformational leaders in the learning process by focusing on the individuality of the student, assisting them in thinking independently, motivating them through inspiration, and acting as role models (Barbuto, Story, Fritz, & Schinstock, 2011).  Although the advisor may be the leader, there are two individuals within the advising relationship: both need to be engaged in order to effect a partnership. 

Relational Theory in Advising

Assessment of advising has assisted many advising programs in identifying outcomes associated with both student learning as well as advisor and advising program delivery.  Learning and programmatic outcomes identify what should be learned through the process and delivery of academic advising.  They also give the advising programs the ability to identify who is responsible for what.  However, the challenge is identifying how to build an advising relationship that is centered on teaching and learning and that works for both the student and advisor.  A dip into interpersonal relations theory provides guidance.

The interpersonal relations theory of Hildegard Peplau (1991/1952) provides clarification on the building blocks and progression of a relationship within a helping profession.  This theory highlights the importance of getting to know relational partners and their roles, creating a sense of belonging and ownership for the process, developing and achieving goals, and creating readiness for independence.   According to Peplau, there are four relational phases of the interpersonal process inherent in a professional practice: orientation, identification, exploration, resolution.  The relationship is viewed as developing over time through interactions that engage both partners, sharing knowledge, and working towards identified goals (Peplau, 1977).  A key component in promoting an engaged partnership is active dialog between the relational partners (Johnson & Morgan, 2005; Lowenstein, 2009).  There are particular relational elements that contribute to and promote an engaged advising partnership: trust, communication, and connectedness.

Trust has been found to create a bond between individuals as they work cooperatively and explore experiences (Bordin, 1979, 1983).  This concept is also highlighted in the NACADA (2006) concept statement: “the relationship between advisors and students is fundamental and is characterized by mutual respect, trust, and ethical behavior” (para. 1).  Each interaction the advising pair has is an opportunity to build the foundational element of trust. 

Institutions often promote academic advisors as individuals upon whom students can depend for accurate information, help with goal setting and attainment, educational direction, and assistance with their future aspirations.  This presumes a level of trust at the onset of the relationship that is known to take time to build (Beck, 1999).  Assisting students and advisors with early engagement can help in creating opportunities for ongoing contact that supports the development of trust between the relational pair.  The early engagement connects the two individuals together on a professional level in order for the advising pair to converse, question, listen, and share.  Listening and appropriate questioning was found to build rapport and develop trust within the advising relationship (Thornhill & Yoder, 2010).

Ongoing communication can also support student and advisor connection in order to share information, learning opportunities, and engage in dialog about the student’s goals, strengths, and interests (Young-Jones, Burt, Dixon, Hawthorne, 2013).  Broad communications sent electronically or in hardcopy to individual students or to student groups are helpful in sharing information, but not as the way to develop an interpersonal relationship; for relationship development, a more direct approach to communication is necessary.  Results of a research study exploring the experiences of 611 students showcased that conversations between the student and advisor that focus on academic life helped identify areas of support needed for student success (Young-Jones et al., 2013).  Advising conversations can also support the development of an environment where a student feels comfortable and supported to share information, ask questions, and experience self-reflection (Hughey, 2011). 

Campbell and Nutt (2008) suggest that academic advising facilitates the connection students have with the institutional community.  If academic advising acts as a connector, what creates the connection between the student and the advisor? This question is critical in understanding the interpersonal relationship found in the practice of academic advising.  Creating the connection between the student and the advisor begins with understanding the definition of relational connection. 

Brown (2010) states that “connection is when an individual feels seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgement.”  Advisors are the individuals who can facilitate interactions where students can be acknowledged, listened to, and valued for who they are in the present moment without preconceived judgements.  As with any developing relationship, there is an amount of authentic sharing from both partners that must occur in order to develop a trust-filled relationship.  Sharing also creates a level of vulnerability within the partnership that can be offset by trust and communication.  The sharing and actions of both relational partners highlight the need for advising to be a relationship where individuals share responsibilities (Allen & Smith, 2008; Crockett, 1985; Frost, 1991).  These shared responsibilities and ongoing conversations promote an environment for relational growth.

How Can Institutions and Advising Programs Assist?

Beres (2010) states that the relational skills are the most challenging area in which to provide professional development.  Identifying this challenge, along with the knowledge of the critical nature of a good academic advising relationship, highlights the importance for institutions to take on this professional development responsibility.  Understanding more about the advising relationship allows advising practitioners to identify areas to strengthen the practice of advising and provide an effective and satisfying academic advising experience for students.  These opportunities must be contextual in that they are designed to match the identified needs of students and advisors at a particular institution.  Influenced by Beres (2010), the following relational topics offer advisors and advising programs a starting point to begin to design offerings that can be complemented with specific institutional needs. 

• Creating your physical advising space
• Making appropriate referrals
• Using creativity during the advising session
• How to have difficult conversations with students that are productive
• Gaining student information through active listening and observing
• Student goal setting
• How to create boundaries within the advising relationship
• Guiding students through the decision-making process
• Understanding non-verbal cues
• Tips on being the authentic advisor
• What does an advising conversation look like
• Good advising doesn’t have to be warm and fuzzy
• Students with mental health issues
• Adult students
• Veteran students
• At-risk students
• High achieving students
• Students as parents
• Students with disabilities
• Online students
• Undecided students
• Transfer student
• Graduate students

Grappling with how best to provide professional development opportunities that support an engaged and meaningful advisor-advisee relationship is a challenge critical to continuing to improve a practice essential to student success in college.  The goal should be to support the development of an advisor–advisee relationship that is authentic, grounded in teaching and learning, and built over time through trust, communication, and connectedness.  To be effective within the relational realm, it is highly recommended that advisors and advising programs understand and embrace these relational components as primary pillars of the academic advising relationship.  

Elizabeth M. Higgins , Ed.D. Director of Academic Advising University of Southern Maine [email protected]

Allen, J. M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (5), 397-411.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., Story, J. S., Fritz, S. M., & Schinstock, J. L. (2011). Full range advising: Transforming the advisor-advisee experience. Journal of College Student Development, 52 (6), 656-670.

Barnett, S., Roach, S., & Smith, M. (2006). Microskills: Advisor behaviors that improve communication with advisees. NACADA Journal, 26 (1), 6-12.

Beck, A. (1999). Advising undecided students: Lessons from chaos theory. NACADA Journal, 19 (1), 45-49.

Beres, K. (2010). Delivery systems: Workshops, lectures, panels and presentations. In J. G. Voller, M. Miller, & S. L. Neste (Eds.), Comprehensive advisor training and development: Practices that deliver . NACADA monograph series no. 21 (pp. 79-88).

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16 (3), 252-260. doi:10.1037/h0085885

Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The counseling psychologist, 11 (1), 35-42. doi:10.1177/0011000083111007

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: Supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement . Peer Review, 10(1), 4–7.

Crockett, D. S. (1985). Academic advising. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of College Student Personnel, 13 (1), 12-17.

Ender, S. C. (1994). Impediments to developmental advising. NACADA Journal, 14 (2), 105-107.

Frost, S. H. (1991). Fostering the critical thinking of college women through academic advising and faculty contact. Journal of College Student Development, 32 (4), 359-366.

Harrison, E. (2009). What constitutes good academic advising? Nursing students' perceptions of academic advising. Journal of Nursing Education, 48 (7), 361-366.

Hughey, J. K. (2011). Strategies to enhance interpersonal relations in academic advising. NACADA Journal, 31 (2), 22-32.

Johnson, E. J., & Morgan, B. L. (2005). Advice on advising: Improving a comprehensive university's program. Teaching of Psychology, 32 (1), 15-18.

Lowenstein, M. (2009). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal, 29 (1), 123-131.

NACADA. (2006). NACADA concept of academic advising. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Concept-of-Academic-Advising-a598.aspx  

NACADA. (2017). Academic Advising Core Competencies Model. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/About-Us/NACADA-Leadership/Administrative-Division/Professional-Development-Committee/PDC-Advisor-Competencies.aspx

Peplau, H. E. (1991). Interpersonal relations in nursing: A conceptual frame of reference for psychodynamic nursing . New York, NY: Springer. (Original work published 1952).

Peplau, H. E. (1997). Peplau's theory of interpersonal relations. Nursing Science Quarterly, 10, 162-167.

Thornhill, K. & Yoder, F. (2010). Teaching the soft skills necessary for building advising relationships. In J.G. Voller, M. Miller, & S. L. Neste (Eds.), Comprehensive advisor training and development: Practices that deliver . NACADA monograph series no. 21. (pp. 171-177).

Young-Jones, A. D., Burt, T. D., Dixon, S., & Hawthorne, M. J. (2013). Academic advising: does it really impact student success? Quality Assurance in Education, 21 (1), 7-19.

Cite this article using APA style as: Higgins, E.M. (2017, June). The advising relationship is at the core of academic advising. Academic Advising Today , 40 (2). Retrieved from [insert url here] 

Related Articles

Post comment, in the current issue.

• Assisting Advisees as They Transition to College Academics
• Deconstructing the Cafeteria Model: Educational Plans as an Agent of Change
• The Doctor is in (Advising)
• Assessment for Faculty Advising: A Brief Review and Recommendations

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

What Makes A Good PhD Supervisor?

• By Dr Harry Hothi
• August 12, 2020

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

Introduction

The indicators that you’ll have the best chance of succeeding in your PhD project are multi-factorial. You’ll need to secure funding, find a research project that you’re interested in and is within your academic area of expertise, maybe even write your own research proposal, and find a good supervisor that will help guide you through PhD life.

As you research more into life as a doctoral student, you’ll appreciate that choosing a good supervisor is one of the most important factors that can influence the success of your project, and even If you complete your PhD at all. You need to find a good supervisory relationship with someone who has a genuine research interest in your project.

This page outlines the top qualities to look for as indicators of an ideal PhD supervisor. But before we get to that, we should be clear on precisely what the supervisor is there to do, and what they are not.

The Role of a PhD Supervisor

A PhD supervisor is there to guide you as you work through PhD life and help you make informed decisions about how you shape your PhD project. The key elements of their supervisory role include:

• To help ensure that you stay on schedule and maintain constant progress of your research so that you ultimately finish your PhD within your intended time frame, typically three to four years.
• To advise and guide you based on their knowledge and expertise in your subject area.
• To help you in the decision-making process as you design, prepare and execute your study design.
• To work with you as you analyse your raw data and begin to draw conclusions about key findings that are coming out of your research.
• To provide feedback and edits where necessary on your manuscripts and elements of your thesis writing.
• To encourage and motivate you and provide ongoing support as a mentor.
• To provide support at a human level, beyond just the academic challenges.

It’s important that you know from the outset what a supervisor isn’t there to do, so that your expectations of the PhDstudent-supervisor relationship are correct. A supervisor cannot and should not create your study design or tell you how you should run your experiments or help you write your thesis. Broadly speaking, you as a PhD student will create, develop and refine content for your thesis, and your supervisor will help you improve this content by providing you with continuous constructive feedback.

There’s a balance to be found here in what makes a good PhD supervisor, ranging from one extreme of providing very little support during a research project, to becoming too involved in the running of the project to the extent that it takes away from it being an independent body of work by the graduate student themselves. Ultimately, what makes a good supervisor is someone you can build a rapport with, who helps bring out the best in you to produce a well written, significant body of research that contributes novel findings to your subject area.

Read on to learn the key qualities you should consider when looking for a good PhD supervisor.

Qualities to Look For in A Good PhD Supervisor

1. a track record of successful phd student supervision.

A quick first check to gauge how good a prospective supervisor is is to find out how many students they’ve successfully supervised in the past; i.e. how many students have earned their PhD under their supervision. Ideally, you’d want to go one step further and find out:

• How many students they’ve supervised in total previously and of those, what percentage have gone onto gain their PhDs; however, this level of detail may not always be easy to find online. Most often though, a conversation with a potential supervisor and even their current or previous students should help you get an idea of this.
• What were the project titles and specifically the areas of research that they supervised on? Are these similar to your intended project or are they significantly different from the type of work performed in the academic’s lab in the past? Of the current students in the lab, are there any projects that could complement yours
• Did any of the previous PhD students publish the work of their doctoral research in peer-reviewed journals and present at conferences? It’s a great sign if they have, and in particular, if they’re named first authors in some or all of these publications.

This isn’t to say that a potential supervisor without a track record of PhD supervision is necessarily a bad fit, especially if the supervisor is relatively new to the position and is still establishing their research group. It is, however, reassuring if you know they have supervision experience in supporting students to successful PhD completion.

2. Is an Expert in their Field of Research

As a PhD candidate, you will want your supervisor to have a high level of research expertise within the field that your own research topic sits in. This expertise will be essential if they are to help guide you through your research and keep you on track to what is most novel and impactful to your research area.

Your supervisor doesn’t necessarily need to have all the answers to questions that arise in your specific PhD project, but should know enough to be able to have useful conversations about your research. It will be your responsibility to discover the answers to problems as they arise, and you should even expect to complete your PhD with a higher level of expertise about your project than your supervisor.

The best way to determine if your supervisor has the expertise to supervise you properly is to look at their publication track record. The things you need to look for are:

• How often do they publish papers in peer-reviewed journals, and are they still actively involved in new papers coming out in the research field?
• What type of journals have they published in? For example, are most papers in comparatively low impact factor journals, or do they have at least some in the ‘big’ journals within your field?
• How many citations do they have from their research? This can be a good indicator of the value that other researchgroups place on these publications; having 50 papers published that have been cited only 10 times may (but not always) suggest that this research is not directly relevant to the subject area or focus from other groups.
• How many co-authors has your potential supervisor published with? Many authors from different institutions is a good indicator of a vast collaborative professional network that could be useful to you.

There’re no hard metrics here as to how many papers or citations an individual needs to be considered an expert, and these numbers can vary considerably between different disciplines. Instead, it’s better to get a sense of where your potential supervisor’s track record sits in comparison to other researchers in the same field; remember that it would be unfair to directly compare the output of a new university lecturer with a well-established professor who has naturally led more research projects.

Equally, this exercise is a good way for you to better understand how interested your supervisor will be in your research; if you find that much of their research output is directly related to your PhD study, then it’s logical that your supervisor has a real interest here. While the opposite is not necessarily true, it’s understandable from a human perspective that a supervisor may be less interested in a project that doesn’t help to further their own research work, especially if they’re already very busy.

Two excellent resources to look up publications are Google Scholar and ResearchGate .

3. Has Enough Time to Provide Good PhD Supervision

This seems like an obvious point, but it’s worth emphasising: how smoothly your PhD goes and ultimately how successful it is, will largely be influenced by how much time your research supervisor has to provide guidance, constructive academic advice and mentorship. The fact that your supervisor is the world’s leading expert in your field becomes a moot point if they don’t have time to meet you.

A good PhD supervisor will take the time to meet with you regularly in person (ideally) or remotely and be reachable and responsive to questions as and when they arise (e.g. through email or video calling). As a student, you want to have a research environment where you know you can drop by your supervisors’ office for a quick chat, or that you’ll see them around the university regularly; chance encounters and corridor discussions are sometimes the most impactful when working through problems.

Unsurprisingly, however, most academics who are well-known experts in their field are also usually some of the busiest too. It’s common for established academic supervisors to have several commitments competing for their time. These can include teaching and supervising undergraduate students, masters students and post-docs, travelling to collaborator meetings or invited talks, managing the growth of their academic department or graduate school, sitting on advisory boards and writing grants for funding applications. Beware of the other obligations they may have and how this could impact your work relationship.

You’ll need to find a balance here to find a PhD supervisor who has the academic knowledge to support you, but also the time to do so; talking to their current and past students will help you get a sense of this. It’s also reassuring to know that your supervisor has a permanent position within your university and has no plans for a sabbatical during your time as a PhD researcher.

4. Is a Good Mentor with a Supportive Personality

A PhD project is an exercise in independently producing a substantial body of research work; the primary role of your supervisor should be to provide mentoring to help you achieve this. You want to have a supervisor with the necessary academic knowledge, but it is just as important to have a supportive supervisor who is actively willing and able to provide you constructive criticism on your work in a consistent manner. You’ll likely get a sense of their personality during your first few meetings with them when discussing your research proposal; if you feel there’s a disconnect between you as a PhD student and your potential supervisor at this stage, it’s better to decide on other options with different supervisors.

A good supervisor will help direct you towards the best outcomes in your PhD research when you reach crossroads. They will work with you to develop a structure for your thesis and encourage you to set deadlines to work to and push you to achieve these. A good mentor should be able to recognise when you need more support in a specific area, be it a technical academic hurdle or simply some guidance in developing efficient work patterns and routines, and have the communication skills to help you recognise and overcome them.

A good supervisor should share the same mindset as you about finishing your PhD within a reasonable time frame; in the UK this would be within three to four years as a full-time university student. Their encouragement should reflect this and (gently) push you to set and reach mini-milestones throughout your project to ensure you stay on track with progress. This is a great example of when a supportive personality and positive attitude is essential for you both to maintain a good professional relationship throughout a PhD. The ideal supervisor will bring out the best in you without becoming prescriptive in their guidance, allowing you the freedom to develop your own working style.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

To sum up, the qualities you should look for in a good PhD supervisor are that they have a strong understanding of your research field, demonstrated by regular and impactful publications, have a proven track record of PhD supervision, have the time to support you, and will do so by providing mentorship rather than being a ‘boss’.

As a final point, if you’re considering a research career after you finish your PhD journey, get a sense of if there may any research opportunities to continue as a postdoc with the supervisor if you so wanted.

Starting your PhD can feel like a daunting, exciting and special time. They’ll be so much to think about – here are a few tips to help you get started.

Thinking about applying to a PhD? Then don’t miss out on these 4 tips on how to best prepare your application.

Is it really possible to do a PhD while working? The answer is ‘yes’, but it comes with several ‘buts’. Read our post to find out if it’s for you.

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

Browse PhDs Now

There are various types of research that are classified by objective, depth of study, analysed data and the time required to study the phenomenon etc.

An academic transcript gives a breakdown of each module you studied for your degree and the mark that you were awarded.

Dr Hooper gained his PhD in evolutionary biology from the the University of Sheffield. He is now a journalist and writer (last book called Superhuman) and podcast editor at New Scientist.

Harneet’s heading into the fourth year of her PhD at the University of Leicester. Her research looks at the electrical currents in the Earth’s magnetosphere: how they change with time, and under different conditions.

Join Thousands of Students

Sai Kanth Dacha

Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Columbia University

• New York City
• Google Scholar

What to Look for in a Potential PhD Advisor

12 minute read

Published: July 17, 2020

“Is he ghosting me?”

“Is she mad at me? Did I say something wrong?”

“Am I good enough? Does s/he even recognize and appreciate what I’m doing?”

Although these sound like the thoughts of someone worried if their partner/spouse is mad at them, these are also the kinds of thoughts that PhD students riddled with Impostor Syndrome often have about their advisors/PIs.

This apparent similarity might seem strange at first sight, but there is often a deeper reality to it: a PhD advisor, and by extension the relationship that a student has with their advisor, has enormous influence over the graduate school experience of the student. Just as a romantic relationship requires effort, communication, honesty and integrity, so does the relationship with one’s PhD advisor.

The struggle is real

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but doing a PhD is quite challenging, especially these days. Grad school application processes are notoriously expensive. Acceptance rates tend to average around 5-10% for STEM fields in the US , and can be low as 2–5% for some programs. International students have the added complication of getting a visa: in 2018, rejection rate for non-immigrant F-1 visa was around 35% . Once they’re in, graduate students world over are often not compensated well enough. In the face of ever-increasing cost of living, this leads to financial stress . Anxiety, stress, impostor syndrome, loneliness, concerns about the future, funding issues are only some of the all-too-familiar challenges that PhD students have to face on a daily basis; all while trying to do something completely new and original that no one in the world has ever done before! It is perhaps no wonder that PhD dropout rates in the US are as high as 50% .

Program structures and academic supervision also have a big role to play. Specifically, the relationship that you have with your advisor can greatly influence your PhD experience. The stories that I’ve listened to from my friends and colleagues over the past few years have made me realize exactly how bad things can get. Together with my own advisor struggles, these stories have given me a better perspective now on what it is that one should look for in a potential PhD advisor. This article is an attempt to give words to my thoughts on this subject — while my grad school experiences are still fresh in memory — in hopes that it will be useful to a prospective PhD student that is looking to find a thesis advisor.

The “Obvious”

1.1) research areas, type of work:.

Assuming acceptance into a PhD program, the first “obvious” thing to look for in a potential advisor is their research interests. Often times, incoming PhD students already have a few research groups in mind before they join the program. This is good practice, but is far from sufficient.

Perhaps the best advice that I’ve received on this topic is from my current advisor, when I first met him before joining his group: look for what it is that you would do on a day-to-day basis and see if you find that exciting, rather than make a choice purely based on research topics. Are you an experimentalist and enjoy hands-on work? If so, would you want to do system-level work or are you more interested in device fabrication? Or are you more inclined to do computational or theoretical work? Asking these questions in addition to what area you want to work in can greatly help in deciding which research group to join.

1.2) Funding:

Funding for universities and scientific research is awfully lacking in many countries, and this is often reflected in the number of active researchers per million population. My own home country India, for instance, has only about 150 researchers per million . Availability of grant funds can vary from one field to another, but generally speaking, there isn’t enough to go around. I have known far too many of my own peers who have had to either TA (in addition to doing research) for multiple years on end, or switch groups because funds ran out. As a result, it is usually helpful to check with a potential advisor if they are willing to fund you for the entire duration of your PhD.

The Less Obvious (And underrated)

2.1) the human being:.

Professors, especially the more popular ones, are some times made out to be larger-than-life figures who can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is that they are human beings, and have personalities and flaws just like everybody else. This might not matter to most people that interact with them, but it does to their PhD students.

A professor that I once worked with drew pleasure from needlessly ridiculing some of his students in front of other people. Another professor I knew would yell at his students as though they were his servants. The advisor of one of my friends is infamous for making his students spend many days on a report or a proposal, only to organize an 8 hour meeting soon after to rephrase everything the way he likes it. Another friend of mine has an advisor that has consistently given preferential treatment to one specific student in the group that she seemingly liked better. I could go on, but you get the point. In all of these cases, the personality of the advisor only affected their student(s), and no one else.

This is not to say that all advisors are bad people; in fact, in my experience, many are good people. But the point is, whether an advisor is a decent human being or not is often overlooked by many before they decide to work for him/her. Does s/he seem like a reasonable individual? Will they let you stay home if you fall sick, or will they expect you to come in no matter what? Do they seem like someone that would care for your mental health and your progress? These questions are important ones that both current and new graduate students must start asking.

As with toxic personal relationships, toxic professional relationships with PhD advisors are bad for students’ mental health. Suicide rates are high enough among PhD students as it is, and the last thing that you’d want as a first-year PhD student is to end up in an advisor situation that could make you regret your choice of doing a PhD. It is therefore a good idea to do your due diligence.

Some of this is hard to assess before joining a group, of course. But talking to current group members and asking the right questions can give you a good sense of things. This, of course, is still not a sufficient enough or a clear-cut enough solution, but it’s a good start. And if you somehow do hear something about what kind of a person s/he is, you would know to not neglect that information.

2.2) The Researcher:

Some researchers prioritize publishing as many papers as possible over all else, and go after quantity over quality. In my field, I have seen competitor groups that try to publish a new paper for every slightly-different result that they get in the lab. More often than not, this has made me desperate to get my work out as quickly as possible (in other words, prematurely). About a year ago, I insisted to my advisor that we submit some experimental observations that I made in the lab to a popular conference in my field. He said no. I persisted, and he still said no. He was not convinced that the data that I had collected was good enough to be published anywhere, despite my confidence in it.

The publication-starved graduate student in me was disappointed and a little heart-broken, but I later realized that he had taught me an important lesson about scientific integrity. (The data that I was so confident about later turned out to be not so reliable after all!) In my view, the kind of researcher that your advisor is will greatly shape what kind of researcher you will go on to be.

2.3) Willingness to Invest in You:

Time : There is some times a misconception among the general public that professorship can be a laid-back job, but most professors that I’ve interacted with are incredibly busy people. In addition to managing multiple research projects, students and postdocs, they are often shooting for new grants, teaching courses, are on various committees and also taking care of their kids and family. While part of their unavailability is therefore more than understandable, some advisors don’t end up making enough time for their students at all. Whether or not you actually get advice from your advisor on a regular basis is key to your growth as a researcher.

Resources: Would a potential advisor invest in your learning and training, or would they rather have you do only what matters for churning out papers? The whole point of a PhD is for you to learn about a subject in as much depth and breadth (in that order) as possible. It is therefore crucial that your advisor gives you the space and opportunities to learn and grow. This could mean anything from providing access to learning material to letting you attend summer schools and academic conferences.

Both of these are important aspects for a good learning experience, and it is a good idea to discuss them with current students of the advisor before making a decision.

2.4) Expectations and Communication:

New professors are often under pressure to publish at a faster pace to be able to keep their jobs. This usually means greater pressure on his/her graduate students to work harder. Older/tenured professors are a bit more “relaxed” in this regard. Neither is necessarily better than the other for a graduate student, but the potential workload and pressure is something to consider. Make sure you know what is expected of you before making the commitment, especially if you have other responsibilities (other jobs, kid(s) to take care of etc.).

Part of doing so is to be able to communicate with your advisor freely. For a long time, a friend of mine has had issues communicating her concerns with her advisor about sexist micro-aggressions directed at her by certain members of the group. The advisor was a woman too, which would ideally have meant that my friend should have felt safe to voice her concerns. But she didn’t. The reason there was simple: the advisor was far too detached from the individuals that made up the group, and communication between her and her students (especially my friend) was non-existent.

The moral of the story is that being able to communicate with your advisor freely about anything and everything is important, to say the least. To those that aren’t going through the PhD experience themselves, this might seem like asking for too much, but as any grad student that has suffered from issues such as this would tell you, communication matters.

Also “Obvious” (But overrated)

3.1) “connections”/”popularity”/h-index:.

It could be tempting to readily join any “popular”/highly-published/well-connected professor’s group if they will have you, but this could prove counterproductive if you have not paid close enough attention to the more fundamental aspects that I’ve mentioned above. The professor that I mentioned before — the one that likes to ridicule his students needlessly in front of others — is extremely well-known in a worldwide scientific collaboration. He is one of the most brilliant people that I have ever met. But I would not want to do my PhD with him.

3.2) University Affiliation:

This is a popular one too. Wouldn’t it be “cooler” to introduce yourself as a PhD student at Harvard or Cornell rather than one at Florida State? It probably would, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better. It is true that Harvard or Cornell might offer you a better overall student experience than some lesser-known universities (not that Florida State isn’t well-known), but there are so many more important things for a PhD. In addition to what I’ve already mentioned above, research environment in the department, access to research facilities and potential collaborators are much more crucial for a well-rounded research experience — irrespective of whether that is at an Ivy League school or some other. These factors are not relevant for undergraduate studies, but for graduate research, they most certainly are.

It is easy (and tempting) to fall into the illusion that h-indices and rankings matter a lot, but more often than not, that illusion breaks as quickly as it comes once the PhD grind begins. Working with a well-connected advisor at an Ivy League school surely has its benefits, but only if you are able to get the support that you need from them to be able to get through grad school in one piece.

The Bottomline

If there is anything that you take away from this article, I hope it is that there is more than what meets the eye when it comes to choosing a PhD advisor. Beyond what the numbers will tell you, the human being that your future advisor is is something that matters. Deciding to do a PhD is a huge commitment. Perhaps today more than ever, graduate students all over the world are facing increasing difficulties with financial compensation, stress, work-life balance and mental health. Having a supportive advisor by your side can greatly help make these 5–6 (hopefully not more) years a better experience.

Checking all of these boxes might not be possible for many. An advisor situation without any issues whatsoever might be even more unlikely. I certainly have had my own challenges and struggles in this regard. I’ve realized that some level of friction and some compromise is almost inevitable, and that that is not necessarily a result of you or your advisor not doing enough, but rather a reflection of the difficulty and complexity of undertaking scientific research. But by asking the right questions before (or even after) making the commitment, and by demanding what is only fair, we not only help our individual selves, but we also help build an environment where the needs of graduate students are better heard. And that, in my view, ultimately only strengthens academia and the scientific community at large.

I am incredibly grateful for the extremely considerate human being and the brilliant researcher that my advisor is — in that order. My hope is that you will be too, for your future advisor.

Needless to say, this article is neither “expert advice” nor “peer-reviewed”. But it was written with the hope that at least some of it will be useful. All this is is the inner thoughts of a 4th year PhD student that has hit multiple roadblocks on his research and is waiting for his advisor to respond to some of his emails.

This story was originally published by the author on Medium .

You May Also Enjoy

Navigating the academic postdoc job market.

7 minute read

Published: July 02, 2023

Thoughts and advice on finding your way through the ever-confusing postdoc job market.

An Informal Guide for Ph.D. Interning During the Semester via the F-1 CPT

8 minute read

Published: January 11, 2022

A few months ago, I had faced the task of extending my summer employment at Nokia Bell Labs into the Fall semester. Little did I know that the process of getting work authorization for the semester and ensuring compliance with other rules is a bit of a minefield, especially for an international Ph.D. student in the U.S. like myself. There were many factors to weigh, and I spent a frustrating few weeks with little guidance to ensure that I’m in compliance with rules concerning everything from immigration and full-time student status to health benefits and tuition fee. Part of this difficulty stemmed from certain specific aspects of the situation that I was in, but a bigger part of it was also that there aren’t very many practical guides out there for international Ph.D. students wanting to do internships during the semester (which as I learnt recently, many are interested in). And so I decided to put together this informal and practical guide that might be helpful for students that might be in similar situations.

Emory Global Health Case Competition - A Reflection

1 minute read

Published: March 20, 2021

A reflection after taking part in the 2021 Emory Global Health Case Competition.

The Earth-bending Scale of the Great Lakes

Published: January 11, 2021

Did you know that you don’t need to be in space to observe the effects of earth’s curvature?

Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis

• Published: 04 May 2018
• Volume 116 , pages 161–180, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Jiaying Liu 1 ,
• Tao Tang 2 ,
• Xiangjie Kong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2698-3319 1 ,
• Amr Tolba 3 , 4 ,
• Zafer AL-Makhadmeh 3 &
• Feng Xia 1  

1012 Accesses

16 Citations

Explore all metrics

Advisor–advisee relationship is important in academic networks due to its universality and necessity. Despite the increasing desire to analyze the career of newcomers, however, the outcomes of different collaboration patterns between advisors and advisees remain unknown. The purpose of this paper is to find out the correlation between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ academic performance in Computer Science. Employing both quantitative and qualitative analysis, we find that with the increase of advisors’ academic age, advisees’ performance experiences an initial growth, follows a sustaining stage, and finally ends up with a declining trend. We also discover the phenomenon that accomplished advisors can bring up skilled advisees. We explore the conclusion from two aspects: (1) Advisees mentored by advisors with high academic level have better academic performance than the rest; (2) Advisors with high academic level can raise their advisees’ h-index ranking. This work provides new insights on promoting our understanding of the relationship between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ performance, as well as on advisor choosing.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Investigating the association between publication performance and the work environment of university research academics: a systematic review

Emmanuel Aboagye, Irene Jensen, … Christina Björklund

Factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in science careers worldwide: a literature review

Beatrice Avolio, Jessica Chávez & Carlos Vílchez-Román

Social networking and academic performance: A review

Tenzin Doleck & Susanne Lajoie

https://www.aminer.cn .

Amjad, T., Ding, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, C., Daud, A., Tang, J., et al. (2017). Standing on the shoulders of giants. Journal of Informetrics , 11 (1), 307–323.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more . New York: Hachette Books.

Google Scholar  

Azoulay, P. (2012). Research efficiency: Turn the scientific method on ourselves. Nature , 484 (7392), 31–32.

Borders, L. D., Wester, K. L., Granello, D. H., Chang, C. Y., Hays, D. G., Pepperell, J., et al. (2012). Association for counselor education and supervision guidelines for research mentorship: Development and implementation. Counselor Education and Supervision , 51 (3), 162–175.

Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & Kostopoulos, K. (2014). Mentoring receipt and personality: Evidence for non-linear relationships. Journal of Business Research , 67 (2), 171–181.

Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 51 (1), 15–28.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology , 45 (3), 619–636.

Dobson, L. (2013). Effective practices of formal mentoring programs. Math Alliance Research Study , 3 , 1–3.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 10 (4), 309–320.

Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics , 114 (3), 393–408.

Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 83 (1), 106–116.

Glänzel, W., Heeffer, S., & Thijs, B. (2017). Lexical analysis of scientific publications for nano-level scientometrics. Scientometrics , 111 , 1–10.

Gollapalli, S. D., Mitra, P., & Giles, C. L. (2011). Ranking authors in digital libraries. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries , (pp. 251–254). ACM.

Hu, C., Wang, S., Yang, C.-C., & Wu, T.-Y. (2014). When mentors feel supported: Relationships with mentoring functions and protégés’ perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 35 (1), 22–37.

Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2015). The elements of mentoring . Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal , 26 (4), 608–625.

Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Sivertsen, G., Kristiansen, E. H., Aksnes, D. W., Borlaug, S. B., et al. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy , 42 , scu083.

Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature , 444 (7122), 1003–1004.

Letchford, A., Moat, H. S., & Preis, T. (2015). The advantage of short paper titles. Royal Society open science , 2 (8), 150266.

Ley, M. (2009). DBLP: Some lessons learned. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , 2 (2), 1493–1500.

Malmgren, R. D., Ottino, J. M., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010). The role of mentorship in protégé performance. Nature , 465 (7298), 622–626.

Moreira, C., Calado, P., & Martins, B. (2011). Learning to rank for expert search in digital libraries of academic publications. In Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence , (pp. 431–445). Springer.

Murphy, T. H. (2015). On great teachers. Journal of Legal Studies Education , 32 (1), 223–227.

Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 98 (2), 404–409.

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Owens, B. (2013). Research assessments: Judgement day. Nature , 502 (7471), 288–290.

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 43 (3), 251–265.

Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science , 354 (6312), aaf5239.

Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the rising star hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 74 (1), 11–17.

Tang, J., Jin, R., & Zhang, J. (2008). A topic modeling approach and its integration into the random walk framework for academic search. In Eighth IEEE international conference on data mining, 2008. ICDM’08 , (pp. 1055–1060). IEEE.

Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). Arnetminer: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , (pp. 990–998). ACM.

Tuesta, E. F., Delgado, K. V., Mugnaini, R., Digiampietri, L. A., Mena-Chalco, J. P., & Pérez-Alcázar, J. J. (2015). Analysis of an advisor–advisee relationship: An exploratory study of the area of exact and earth sciences in Brazil. PloS ONE , 10 (5), e0129065.

Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 (3), 410–423.

Wang, W., Liu, J., Xia, F., King, I., & Tong, H. (2017). Shifu: Deep learning based advisor–advisee relationship mining in scholarly big data. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion , (pp. 303–310). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

Wang, W., Liu, J., Yu, S., Zhang, C., Xu, Z., & Xia, F. (2016). Mining advisor–advisee relationships in scholarly big data: A deep learning approach. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on joint conference on digital libraries .

Wang, W., Yu, S., Bekele, T. M., Kong, X., & Xia, F. (2017). Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars academic ages. Scientometrics , 112 (1), 329–343.

Xia, F., Wang, W., Bekele, T. M., & Liu, H. (2017). Big scholarly data: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Big Data , 3 (1), 18–35.

Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). What did you expect? An examination of career-related support and social support among mentors and protégés. Journal of Management , 26 (4), 611–632.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through research group NO (RG-1438-027). Xiangjie Kong is supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant NO (DUT18JC09), and China Scholarship Council under Grant NO (201706060067).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, School of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

Jiaying Liu, Xiangjie Kong & Feng Xia

Chengdu College, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

Computer Science Department, Community College, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Amr Tolba & Zafer AL-Makhadmeh

Mathematics and Computer Science Department, Faculty of Science, Menoufia University, Shibin El Kom, Egypt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangjie Kong .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liu, J., Tang, T., Kong, X. et al. Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis. Scientometrics 116 , 161–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2762-2

Download citation

Received : 08 October 2017

Published : 04 May 2018

Issue Date : July 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2762-2

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

• Academic networks
• Scholarly data
• Social network analysis
• Advisor–advisee relationship
• Collaboration patterns
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Kshitij Tiwari Ph.D.

When to switch PhD advisors: Signs and Strategies

A PhD advisor is an important figure in a graduate student’s academic journey. They provide guidance, support, and feedback on research work. When signing up for the PhD program and undergoing the interview process, you asked questions to get to know your advisor better to evaluate how well you fit the lab and you also evaluated the advisor’s approach and profile .

However, a time may come when a student feels the need to switch advisors. But when is the right time to do so and how to go about it ? In this blog post, we will discuss the signs that indicate it’s time to switch PhD advisors and the strategies that can be used to make the switch as smooth as possible.

Table of Contents

Can you even switch PhD advisors?

Signs it is time to switch advisors.

Strategies for for m aking the s witch

Intra-University versus Inter-University switch

Kickstarting research after switching advisors, key takeaways.

Let’s address the million dollar question first: Can you even switch PhD advisors or are is selecting a PhD advisor like a one time deal and your are stuck with them forever?

Yes, you can switch PhD advisors. While it is not a decision that should be taken lightly, it is important to prioritize your academic success and well-being. If you feel that your current advisor is not providing the necessary support or is hindering your progress, then switching may be necessary. However, before making a decision, it is important to consider the potential consequences and ensure that you have a solid plan in place.

Lack of Communication

Communication is vital in any advisor-student relationship. If your advisor is not responding to your emails, not providing feedback on your research work, or not taking your concerns seriously, it may be time to consider a switch.

Lack of Expertise

If your research interests change or you realize that your advisor’s area of expertise doesn’t align with your research goals, it may be difficult to work together effectively.

Personality Conflicts

In some cases, a personality clash with your advisor may make it difficult to work together or make progress on your research.

Lack of Support

A supportive advisor provides funding, resources, and connections to help their students succeed. If you feel like your advisor isn’t helping you reach your academic goals, it may be time to switch.

Unavailability or Excessive Workload of the Advisor

If you find it challenging to schedule meetings or receive timely responses to your inquiries, it can hinder your progress and impede effective collaboration. Additionally, if your advisor’s workload is so extensive that they are unable to provide the necessary guidance and support, it can hinder your academic growth and research development.

Strategies for making the switch

When preparing for a transition to a new advisor, it’s important to take certain steps to ensure a smooth and successful switch. Here are some key considerations:

Developing a Transition Plan

Develop a plan to guide you through the transition process. Identify key tasks and milestones, establish a timeline, and determine how to manage ongoing projects and transfer research materials. Set clear goals and expectations for the new advisor-student relationship.

Notifying Relevant Stakeholders

Inform relevant stakeholders about the upcoming advisor change. Schedule a meeting with your current advisor to discuss your decision and express gratitude. Notify your department or program coordinator to ensure they are aware of the change. Update committee members, if applicable, and discuss any adjustments to the committee composition.

Managing Paperwork and Administrative Processes

Familiarize yourself with the administrative requirements of your institution. Coordinate with administrative offices to complete necessary forms or documentation. Ensure a smooth transfer of administrative responsibilities, such as funding and project management, to the new advisor.

Building Rapport with the New Advisor

Establish a positive relationship with your new advisor. Schedule an initial meeting to introduce yourself, discuss research interests, and align expectations. Seek guidance on preferred communication style and meeting frequency. Familiarize yourself with the new advisor’s research work and areas of expertise. Maintain open and effective communication throughout the transition period.

For international students pursuing a PhD in a foreign country , switching advisors within the same university (intra-university switch) or moving to a different university (inter-university switch) both have their own advantages and considerations. Here are some pros and cons to consider:

When you switch advisors, it’s crucial to kickstart your research effectively to ensure a smooth transition and maximize your productivity. Here are some key strategies to consider:

Establishing Clear Expectations and Goals

Begin by having a detailed discussion with your new advisor to establish clear expectations and goals for your research. Clearly communicate your research interests, objectives, and any specific milestones you aim to achieve. This will help align your advisor’s guidance with your aspirations and set a solid foundation for your work.

Regular Communication and Progress Updates

Maintaining regular communication with your new advisor is vital to stay on track and keep them updated on your progress. Schedule periodic meetings to discuss your research, share any challenges you encounter, and seek advice on overcoming them. By maintaining open lines of communication, you can receive timely feedback and ensure that you are making progress in the right direction.

Seeking Guidance and Support from the New Advisor

Take advantage of your new advisor’s expertise and seek their guidance and support whenever needed. They can provide valuable insights, suggest relevant literature, and help you navigate any research roadblocks. Engage in discussions with them to brainstorm ideas, refine your research methodology, and gain new perspectives that can enhance the quality of your work.

Building a Positive and Productive Working Relationship

Building a positive and productive working relationship with your new advisor is essential for a successful research journey. Be proactive in seeking their input and demonstrating your commitment to your research. Show respect for their expertise and value their time by being prepared for meetings and following through on agreed-upon tasks. Cultivating a strong rapport will not only contribute to a conducive research environment but also foster mutual trust and collaboration.

Deciding to change PhD advisors is a major decision that requires careful consideration. Identify the signs that suggest it is time to switch and use effective methods to ensure the transition is seamless. Ultimately, your academic journey should be a rewarding experience, so selecting the right advisor is essential.

Related resources

• I consent to the having this website store my submitted information as per the privacy policy so they can respond to my inquiry.

Nine Science Terps Awarded 2024 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships

Nine current students and recent alums of the University of Maryland’s College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences (CMNS) received prestigious  National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowships , which recognize outstanding graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Across the university, 22 current students and recent alums were among the 2024 fellowship winners announced by the NSF. The college’s nine awardees include four current graduate students and five recent alums.

CMNS graduate student recipients:

• Mikayla Greiner, biophysics
• Megan Ma, entomology
• Sadia Nourin (B.S. ’23, computer science; B.S. ’23, finance), computer science
• Emily Wisinski, atmospheric and oceanic science

CMNS alum recipients:

• Marcus Benyamin (B.S. ’17, mathematics ; B.S. ’17, chemical engineering)
• Kaitlyn Dold (B.S. ’22, chemistry )
• Katharina Krstic (B.S. ’22, chemistry )
• Siri Neerchal (B.S. ’21, mathematics ; B.S. ’21, history)
• Ashley Weiss (B.S. ’22, biological sciences )

NSF fellows receive three years of support, including a $37,000 annual stipend, a $16,000 cost-of-education allowance for tuition and fees, and access to opportunities for professional development.

The NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program helps ensure the vitality of the human resource base of science and engineering in the United States and reinforces its diversity. The program recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students in NSF-supported science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees at accredited U.S. institutions.

Since 1952, NSF has funded more than 60,000 Graduate Research Fellowships out of more than 500,000 applicants. At least 42 fellows have gone on to become Nobel laureates and more than 450 have become members of the National Academy of Sciences.

About the College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences

The College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences at the University of Maryland educates more than 8,000 future scientific leaders in its undergraduate and graduate programs each year. The college's 10 departments and six interdisciplinary research centers foster scientific discovery with annual sponsored research funding exceeding $250 million.

Media Relations Contact

Abby robinson, related news.

• Biophysics Graduate Program

Cornell Chronicle

• Architecture & Design
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Economics & Entrepreneurship
• Computing & Information Sciences
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Food & Agriculture
• Global Reach
• Health, Nutrition & Medicine
• Law, Government & Public Policy
• Life Sciences & Veterinary Medicine
• Physical Sciences & Engineering
• Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Coronavirus
• News & Events
• Public Engagement
• New York City
• Photos of the Day
• Big Red Sports
• Freedom of Expression
• Student Life
• University Statements
• Around Cornell
• All Stories
• In the News
• Expert Quotes
• Cornellians

Former national security adviser to speak on US-China relations

By linda b. glaser college of arts and sciences.

Former National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley '69 will explore “U.S. National Security Policymaking and the Future of U.S.-China Relations” in a fireside chat on Wednesday, April 17, with Jessica Chen Weiss, the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies in the government department in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is also a faculty member in the Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy.

The talk, hosted by the Cornell Levinson Program in China and Asia-Pacific Studies (A&S), will be at 5 p.m. in Room 120, Physical Sciences Building, followed by a reception at 6:15 p.m. in the Baker Portico.

Stephen J. Hadley

Those attending in person can register to attend here . The event is hybrid; those attending online can register here . 

“With China-U.S. relations at a tipping point, the insights offered by Steve Hadley will be of particular interest to the Cornell community,” Weiss said. “I look forward to an illuminating conversation that goes in-depth into U.S. foreign policy and China.”  

From 2005 to 2009, Hadley served as the assistant to the president for national security affairs, and from 2001 to 2005, he was the assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, serving under Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser. Hadley had previously served on the National Security Council staff and in the Defense Department, including as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy from 1989 to 1993. 

Hadley – who majored in government in A&S – is a principal of Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC, an international strategic consulting firm founded with Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates and Anja Manuel. He is an executive vice chair of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council and is also the former board chair of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). He has served on a number of corporate and advisory boards, including: the National Security Advisory Panel to the Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense Policy Board and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. He is editor of the book “Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama.”  

Weiss is a nonresident senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute Center for China Analysis. From August 2021 to July 2022, she served as senior adviser to the secretary of state’s Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department on a Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship for Tenured International Relations Scholars (IAF-TIRS). She is the author of “Powerful Patriots: Nationalist Protest in China’s Foreign Relations.” She has published widely, both in scholarly journals and media including commentary in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, the Los Angeles Times and The Ezra Klein Show. Weiss was profiled by The New Yorker and named one of Prospect Magazine’s Top Thinkers for 2024.  

The event is co-sponsored by the Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy, Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, the Department of Government (A&S), and East Asia Program. 

Linda B. Glaser is news and media relations manager for the College of Arts and Sciences.

Media Contact

Adam allington.

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like

Gallery Heading

• CBSSports.com
• Fanatics Sportsbook
• CBS Sports Home
• Masters Live
• Champions League
• Motor Sports
• High School
• Horse Racing 

Men's Brackets

Women's Brackets

Fantasy Baseball

Fantasy football, football pick'em, college pick'em, fantasy basketball, fantasy hockey, franchise games, 24/7 sports news network.

• CBS Sports Golazo Network
• PGA Tour on CBS
• UEFA Champions League
• UEFA Europa League
• Italian Serie A
• Watch CBS Sports Network
• TV Shows & Listings

The Early Edge

A Daily SportsLine Betting Podcast

With the First Pick

NFL Draft is coming up!

• Podcasts Home
• Eye On College Basketball
• The First Cut Golf
• NFL Pick Six
• Cover 3 College Football
• Fantasy Football Today
• My Teams Organize / See All Teams Help Account Settings Log Out

Auburn signs 10-year apparel deal with Nike to begin in 2025, ends 18-year partnership with Under Armour

Auburn's relationship with under armour is coming to an end after almost 20 years.

Auburn University will be switching to Nike as its apparel and shoe provider once its current deal with Under Armour expires in July 2025, the school announced Tuesday . Auburn's new deal with Nike covers 10 years and is set to make Auburn one of the highest-paid Nike-sponsored programs in the nation, according to 247Sports . 

"We are excited to enter this new partnership with Nike, a brand that consistently champions athletes and sport around the world," Auburn athletic director John Cohen said in a statement. "We are appreciative of their strong support throughout this process. We believe that our 10-year agreement, beginning in July 2025, will continue to elevate Auburn and best serve our student-athletes and our university moving forward.

"We are also grateful to Kevin Plank and Under Armour for their 18 years of valued partnership in growing the Auburn brand and serving our student athletes, coaches, and fans. We look forward to the opportunity to celebrate this relationship throughout the final year ahead."

𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁. July 2025. #WarEagle pic.twitter.com/j0Rr7Zqq9n — Auburn Tigers (@AuburnTigers) April 9, 2024

Auburn's partnership with Under Armour began in 2006 following a longtime collaboration with Russel Athletic. The contract was restructured in 2015 and increased in value to $78.1 million

During its partnership with Under Armour, Auburn won a national championship with Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Cam Newton leading the way, two SEC championships and six bowl games. Auburn's new deal with Nike starts ahead of what will likely be football coach Hugh Freeze's third year with the Tigers. The former Ole Miss and Liberty boss led Auburn to a 6-7 record during his first year on the Plains in 2023. 

Our Latest College Football Stories

Position battles to keep an eye on in spring games

Chip patterson • 7 min read.

Mark Stoops sends farewell message to John Calipari

Shehan jeyarajah • 2 min read.

USC DL Bear Alexander denies transfer portal report

Shehan jeyarajah • 1 min read.

Georgia football spring game: Updates from Dawgs247

Cbs sports staff • 3 min read.

Oregon State RB Damien Martinez to enter portal

Is Will Howard an upgrade at QB for Ohio State?

Tom fornelli • 4 min read, share video.

Auburn switching to Nike as apparel sponsor in 2025

Is Howard a QB upgrade for Ohio State?

NCAA's push to ban prop bets has merit

Judge denies Florida State's motion to dismiss ACC suit

AAC hires Tim Pernetti as new commissioner

Warren Sapp joins Colorado staff as graduate assistant

Frost 'dying' for chance to coach again