phd supervisor expectations

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.

A concept paper is a short document written by a researcher before starting their research project, explaining what the study is about, why it is needed and the methods that will be used.

In Finland, all new PhD holders are given a traditional Doctoral Hat and Doctoral Sword during a Conferment Ceremony, symbolising the freedom of research.

How should you spend your first week as a PhD student? Here’s are 7 steps to help you get started on your journey.

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

Browse PhDs Now

There’s no doubt about it – writing can be difficult. Whether you’re writing the first sentence of a paper or a grant proposal, it’s easy

Academic conferences are expensive and it can be tough finding the funds to go; this naturally leads to the question of are academic conferences worth it?

Dr Roberts gained her PhD from Duke University in 2014 in the field of biomedical engineering. She now runs her own business named Personal Finance for PhDs.

Chris is making minor corrections to his PhD thesis post-viva at the University of Nottingham. His research was on optimising the cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening for diabetic retinopathy.

Join Thousands of Students

Teaching & Learning

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

The Good Supervision Guide for new and experienced research supervisors of PhDs

This guide, written by a PhD candidate, is based on interviews with UCL Faculty Graduate Tutors at UCL.

1 August 2019

Written by Alexandra Bulat (PhD Candidate, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies).

Whether you are  new to supervision or already have extensive experience , it is always possible to learn from others’ experiences. 

This guide was compiled based on interviews with Faculty Graduate Tutors from across the  disciplines:

• medical sciences
• arts and humanities
• mathematical and physical sciences
• life sciences
• population health sciences
• built environment
• engineering
• social and historical sciences. 

We asked them to give examples of what ‘good supervision practice’ means for them and developed a guide based on the themes which emerged from these conversations. 

Some supervision advice applies to some disciplines more than others, whereas other insights transcend disciplinary boundaries.

What good research supervision practice is

Even after years of experience, some naturally struggle to answer the question 'What is good supervision practice?' with precise examples. 

We identified three key principles, which, if applied, will likely improve the relationship between you and your PhD students. 

Each principle is divided into themes which include advice from the Faculty Graduate Tutors we interviewed.

1. Set expectations, but be aware of the changing reality

This section provides advice on: 

• setting expectations early in the PhD
• being flexible
• planning the PhD process
• managing your time spent on supervision.

2. Communicate well with students, peers and make use of institutional resources

• listening to students
• communicating with fellow supervisors and working well with the institutional structures in which supervision takes place
• making use of the resources available.

3. Think outside the (thesis) box

This section provides advice on:

• how to think beyond the thesis as a piece of research 
• how to consider your students’ career aspirations, which may not always be academic.

Download the full PDF guide to good research supervision

Where to find help and support

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

Research and project supervision: an introduction  (Arena guide)

Appropriate Forms of Supervision Guide from the UCL Academic Manual

the PhD diaries

The UCL Doctoral School

Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees

Doctoral Skills Development programme

Student skills support (including academic writing)

Student Support and Wellbeing

UCL Students' Union (UCLU)  

UCL Careers

External resources

Vitae: supervising a docorate

UK Council for Graduate Education

Higher Education Academy – supervising international students (pdf)

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

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

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

Research supervision at UCL

Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction - UCL Arena Centre toolkit

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre 

UCL Education Strategy 2016–21  

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

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

Education events

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

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

What can your PhD supervisor do for you?

4 ways to a more productive relationship.

Gemma Conroy

Credit: Thomas Barwick/Getty

31 March 2020

Thomas Barwick/Getty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Be clear about expectations from the start

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

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

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

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

2. Agree on achievable goals

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

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

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

3. Help students be independent and collaborative

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

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

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

4. Keep communication open

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

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

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

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

How to be a PhD supervisor

The relationship between phd students and their supervisors is often said to be the most intense in the academy, with huge implications for student success. yet most supervisors receive little if any training. here, six academics give their take on how to approach it .

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

The anomaly of academics receiving years of training in research but none in teaching is often remarked upon. But, equally notoriously, what that research training amounts to very much depends on the individual supervisor. After all, academics are not trained in research supervision either, and both supervisors and supervisees have their own set of expectations, needs and aptitudes.

How much and what variety of direction is appropriate? And to what end? Is the PhD still best conceived exclusively as an apprenticeship for would-be academics, even though many doctoral graduates end up – willingly or otherwise – in other walks of life? Indeed, is it realistic to expect all PhD students to be proficient in independent research at the end of the process? And what to do with those who are not? Is it the supervisor’s task to make sure they drop out early? Must supervisors always be optimistic and encouraging, offering whatever level of micromanagement is necessary to get the student through?

Here, six academics give their own takes on where the lines should be drawn in the doctoral quicksand.

  ‘A PhD is about becoming an independent researcher’

If a final-year PhD researcher isn’t regularly telling me that I’m wrong, I worry; something has gone badly awry. They should argue that there’s no way my latest hare-brained experimental design could ever work, that my interpretation of the data can’t possibly be correct because it doesn’t take very basic physics into account, and that the paper published months ago by Professor W. Leader’s group at Prestige University described exactly the type of measurement I suggested in our most recent meeting. Why the heck wasn’t I aware of this? Don’t I read the literature? (They get extra credit for peppering their arguments with suitably chosen expletives.)

Demonstrating that level of project “ownership” is essential because otherwise I feel that I’ve failed in my supervision, not least because my university’s criteria for awarding a PhD – in line with those of every other university out there – stipulate that the candidate must have developed “the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems”.

They must also demonstrate “a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice”. I’ve never been able to square the rather perverse circle of requiring a student to be at the forefront of an academic discipline; someone whose doctoral work is, by definition, at the forefront of a discipline is most definitely not a student; they’re an expert defining the direction of their particular sub-field (or, as is more usual, their sub-sub-sub-sub-field). Still, it is clear that they should at least be in a position to swear with conviction at someone who is at the forefront of the discipline.

So I’m firmly of the opinion that we should ditch the term “PhD student” and instead use the rather more accurate “PhD researcher”. I am not alone in this. Jeff Ollerton, professor of biodiversity at the University of Northampton , has been making compelling arguments against the use of the term “PhD student” for quite some time. Retiring the “student” label would help drive a culture change that not only better recognised the core contributions made by PhD candidates to the research “ecosystem” (including those many first-authored papers submitted to the research excellence framework) but could also help improve their status in the eyes of that – hopefully dying – breed of PI who see early career researchers as the hired help, rather than the peers they should be. I was very fortunate to have a PhD supervisor with whom I genuinely collaborated; ideas were debated, discussed and dissected and I was never made to feel that I should “know my place”. I’ve since learned that this is not always the norm.  

Of course, not all PhD researchers are created equal; I am not so naive as to imagine that every doctoral candidate in every lab or library is capable of generating “a substantial body of knowledge at the forefront of an academic discipline”. But isn’t it then about time that we came clean about this? And wouldn’t phasing out the “PhD student” term help send a strong message to those who are considering taking on the formidable challenge of a doctoral programme?

A PhD is about becoming an independent researcher. The process is a universe away from the exam-and-coursework cycle that drives the vast majority of undergraduate degrees. There’s no curriculum and no textbook that map out a PhD from start to finish; no neatly annotated problems whose solutions are helpfully given in the back of the book. PhD researchers in effect write the textbook for the next generation of undergrads – what else do we mean when we say a doctoral thesis should be about expanding the body of knowledge in a particular field?    

In physics, we’ve become rather more open with PhD applicants in recent years about their chances of ultimately securing an academic position, should that be their goal. Let’s go one step further and be entirely upfront about the level of independence and self-direction involved in a PhD.

I’ve already followed Ollerton’s example and stopped referring to doctoral candidates as students. Why not join us? I suspect that your PhD researchers will appreciate the change.

Philip Moriarty is professor of physics at the University of Nottingham .

‘Being a decent supervisor means being a decent human being’

My PhD supervisor taught me a valuable lesson about good supervision: it involves far more than teaching a doctoral student how to be a good writer and researcher. It is about believing in students’ academic potential, fostering their confidence and supporting them on whichever of life’s pathways they choose to take.

From the outset of my own PhD, I got a strong sense from my supervisor that he had faith in my abilities as an academic – he wanted me to succeed, and he never stopped telling me that he believed I could succeed. He was therefore committed to helping me develop the skills I would need when it came to navigating the postdoctoral job search. He advised me to do some tutoring early on, so that I could learn more about the art of teaching. He alerted me to job opportunities and gave some invaluable advice about performing well at interviews. He encouraged me to spend a semester at an overseas institution, which proved particularly fruitful, allowing me to develop my confidence on both personal and academic levels. Lastly, he instilled in me a passion for networking and collaboration, both of which have proved invaluable throughout my academic career.

Over the past few years, as I have taken up the mantle of PhD supervision, the lessons I learned from my supervisor have stayed with me. As well as guiding my students’ research and writing, I always take time to share some of the transferable skills that I acquired. I encourage them to participate in projects that will build their self-confidence as academics and in the wider world. I nudge them to present regularly at key conferences and have invited some to collaborate in writing projects with me. I seek opportunities for them to network with other academics in their field, or apply for a tutoring job, or gain experience and confidence in talking about their research. Following the example of my own supervisor, I want my students to know that I will do my best to nurture their abilities and support their endeavours as much as I can.

Nevertheless, good supervision is not solely focused on students’ future job prospects. Being a decent supervisor means being a decent human being, and showing students your respect and support. I always recall that, just before I began my PhD, my supervisor offered to assist me with my doctoral funding application; he knew I needed the funding and he wanted me to succeed. Despite being already overstretched with other academic commitments, he took time to look through my application with me, using his own rich experience to highlight its weaknesses and strengths. And throughout my studies, he supported me quietly as I went through the personal traumas of a family bereavement and a relationship break-up.

This basic sense of kindness is wrought from an acknowledgement that our PhD students are human beings, just like us. They look to us as role models – both academic and otherwise – and it is our responsibility to show them that we are good academics and good people. Hopefully, they will carry on this tradition if, in later years, they become supervisors themselves.

Kindness is something I place at the forefront of the relationships I share with all my students, and, honestly, it’s not that hard. Words of encouragement during moments of self-doubt, a listening ear when life’s stresses get in the way, a shared coffee or lunch when money is tight – small gestures that, as I recall myself, can go a long way in making the PhD journey that little bit easier.

Caroline Blyth is a senior lecturer in theological and religious studies at the University of Auckland .

‘Providing structure is hugely beneficial to both the student and the supervisor’

Some of life’s most important roles come with no training – you have to learn everything on the job. Being a parent is one of those, and being a PhD supervisor is another. The similarity between these undertakings probably extends even further – to me, being a PhD supervisor means having the opportunity to nurture a young researcher, and to provide them with a strong and secure foundation on which they can establish a career.

This involves figuring out how best to support and encourage them, while also establishing strong expectations and boundaries. It means being present and available to provide input and feedback, while at the same time fostering confidence, independence and a sense of responsibility for their own future. It means being a role model, and inculcating skills and values (such as academic integrity) that will serve them throughout their career, whether that is in academia or beyond. It also means supporting them through the inevitable hard times, and revelling in their successes. In other words – it’s a pretty hefty responsibility, and often a difficult and stressful one.

I have a rather unconventional supervision history – my first faculty position did not permit PhD student supervision – so the bulk of my experience comes from more informal supervisory relationships with people from a variety of backgrounds, from recent bachelor’s graduates, to postdoctoral fellows, to more senior researchers. But these experiences, together with my memories of my time as a student and my growing experience as an undergraduate, MSc and PhD supervisor, have taught me some important lessons.

Among the most significant is the importance of structure: setting clear and explicit expectations, including deadlines and milestones (such as submission of papers for peer review), backed up by regular meetings with a specific agenda, action items and student follow-up. Providing such structure can be a lot of work, but it is hugely beneficial to both the student and the supervisor.

For students who are making the transition from the undergraduate or taught MSc setting, one of the most challenging features of the research PhD is often the lack of deadlines and the feeling of achievement that comes with meeting them, as well as the benchmarking that feedback on assignments or exams provides. Easing that transition allows the student to gain a sense of achievement and awareness of areas of growth and weakness, but it also alerts the supervisor to any signs of difficulties that might stand in the way of completion, such as mental health difficulties that may need support and a potential revision of the PhD plan and timeline. It can also provide a clear basis for communicating with a student that things are not progressing as they should, and that completion may not be a realistic goal at all.

All that said, I have to acknowledge that I often find it difficult to follow my own advice. Academic time goes by at warp speed, and sometimes attempts at structure just fall by the wayside. I also think that the onus for managing the relationship should not fall on the supervisor alone: students must also take responsibility for their own progression.

Figuring out these roles and responsibilities can be one of the most challenging aspects of being a PhD supervisor, and seeking out formal training in good management skills (now offered by many universities) can be immensely beneficial. But, ultimately, the nature of the PhD structure is necessarily dictated on a case-by-case basis by both the supervisor’s and the student’s personalities and working styles. For some students, a “micromanagement” style may prove necessary, while for others, a lighter touch will be more effective. I naturally shy away from the former and find it difficult to implement.

No doubt many academics – who, by definition, were proficient at working semi-independently during their own doctorates – feel the same. But if we have admitted a student to a doctoral programme, we have to accept that it is incumbent on us to give them the help they need to succeed.

Sometimes, of course, a gap will remain between expectations and student progress. In such cases, structures for performance tracking and feedback can help supervisors to determine whether or not the completion of the PhD is within reach. Given the recessive job climate in academia, stepping off the PhD track can often be a sensible option, and should be thought of as goal adjustment, not defeat.

Clare Kelly is Ussher assistant professor of functional neuroimaging at Trinity College Dublin and adjunct assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at New York University .

‘We can augment research skills with practical talents that build resilience and hone interpersonal intelligence’

PhD dropout numbers are approaching 50 per cent for many scientific disciplines in the US. That is because – speaking exclusively of scientific training – the truth is that not every doctoral student is cut out for independent research. In light of that, we should reconsider the true importance of possessing a doctorate.

After all, independent research is not the only walk of life in which the deep subject expertise and critical thinking skills acquired during doctoral study have enormous value. The years spent learning complex material, performing experiments and analysing data are immensely beneficial to anyone capable of doing these things. And sharing that information is necessary for the rest of society, too.

We need credentialed experts in every field, spread broadly, to enrich the lives of others who may not be so fortunate to have such opportunities. This is especially essential today, when misinformation is more believable than fact, and people confuse opinion with scholarship. Ideally, experts of every discipline should be embedded at all levels of the community, from teachers to church leaders, from small business owners to corporate leaders, to connect people to wisdom.

Perhaps the first step towards achieving this goal would be to remove the term “non-traditional career” from the academic advising vocabulary – even while keeping it very much inclusive of the production of PIs. We are living in a time of immense innovation, so fresh thoughts about employment trajectories should be equally novel. A student who ends up working outside academia should not be regarded by their supervisor as a failed self-cloning experiment. A PhD teaches students how to think, but we can broaden the scope of our mentoring to augment research skills with practical talents that build resilience and hone the interpersonal intelligence that is valuable in a wide range of careers.

In many US universities, students intent on entering the research phase of their doctorates have first to pass a two-day written and a one-day oral candidacy exam, so we already have sufficient preliminary evidence of their subject content mastery. When their suitability to be an independent researcher is in doubt, I try to direct my own students into jobs that may better suit their skills within academia. One example is student instruction; I offer teaching opportunities in my undergraduate courses in the form of 1–2 credit hours of independent study. This allows the doctoral students to prepare a topic, present it and create test questions, as well as to host and moderate the associated discussions on the electronic learning platform. The postgraduates are often surprised at how difficult and time-consuming this is.

For instance, pharmacology or biochemistry students with talents that may be more suited to the biomedical industry could be partnered with industry experts in their field who offer internships beyond the bench, to see how they fit in a non-academic environment. Many academic scientists have their own ties to industry, so it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that this could be arranged for the few students a year – perhaps as early as the second year of graduate school, before the research phase begins.

Some will say that PIs are not in a good position to prepare people for careers with which they themselves have no personal familiarity. But we were trained to develop young scientists and to get them to their destination. Whether that destination mirrors our own should be irrelevant.

Jennifer Schnellmann is associate professor of pharmacology at the  University of Arizona .

‘Students need to bring their interests into conversation with the discipline as a whole’

I’ve always conceived higher education to be a process of negotiation between the consumption and the production of knowledge. Students who are capable consumers of knowledge – usually those who do well in examinations – do not necessarily become equally capable producers of knowledge: that is, researchers. The reverse is also true.

Production of knowledge should start early, ideally in the form of undergraduate research papers. But, of course, it comes much more strongly into focus during the doctorate. There are debates about whether the dissertation is the last work of the research trainee or the first utterance of the professional. Perhaps it is a bit of both, but the proportions typically vary according to whether the student is working in the humanities or the natural sciences.

Research in the humanities is, for the most part, done by individuals, while scientific research is more of a group activity, led by a principal investigator. What this means is that anyone who has completed a doctorate in the humanities – my field – is, by definition, capable of independent research – unless the degree has been obtained by unfair means! Advisers share their expertise in the larger subfield, but the dissertation project itself is very much the student’s own.

I’ve known advisers who recommend that their students do not publish before completing their degree; and I’ve known advisers who encourage students to publish, present and network as much as possible even before the dissertation is completed. The conflict is between an approach that sees a doctorate as a complete, disinterested immersion in scholarship versus one that conceives it as professionalisation – which includes socialisation into the institutional lives of a given discipline, as well as more material functions such as seeking jobs, grants and fellowships. Scholarship and professionalisation are related and mutually reinforcing, of course, yet they are not the same and some people are better at one than the other.

My recommendation to my advisees is that they pursue a middle course. The origin of their scholarship, I tell them, should be something that sparks their passion, but once the fire is started, they need to bring their interests into conversation with the discipline as a whole. So, yes, they should use publication to enter into the conversation, but they should guard against letting professionalisation take over the independence and integrity of their intellectual lives. Dissertations should not be shaped in response to the jobs market. But once they have their scholarly trajectory in place, they should identify how it addresses needs and gaps in the discipline as practised today.

One of the big debates in my field, literary studies, is the book versus dissertation question. Should a doctoral student concentrate on fulfilling the traditional expectations of the very small group of people who will ever pay their dissertation any attention, adorning it with copious footnotes and a lengthy literature review that even the examiners won’t read? Or should they write with the wider book audience in mind right from the beginning?

My personal recommendation is to try to write the book. “Try” is the operative word: it is not easy to write something that coheres and reads like a book, especially for the first-time writer, yet aiming to do so will still lead to a radically more readable style. And this is important in the humanities, where the product and the process are not easily separable. It is probably OK for an article describing a new drug to be written in a dull or inaccessible style. But in literature, scholarship must also bring pleasure, even to academic readers.

In any case, students will be revising their dissertations for publication soon enough. Why waste huge chunks of time during their postdoctoral fellowship or first tenure-track job doing so? Much better to cut out the flab from the very outset.

Saikat Majumdar is professor of English and creative writing at  Ashoka University . He is the author, most recently, of  College: Pathways of Possibility  (Bloomsbury India, 2018).

‘The paltry credit offered in the US system disincentivises true mentorship’

Over the past half-decade I have directed well over a dozen graduate projects, and I believe more than ever that the effectiveness of the process should be replicated across the curriculum.

Working one-to-one with a senior scholar expert in the field is a unique boon for student persistence and engagement. To the extent that a thesis, dissertation or other extended research project effectively reduces the corporate scale and increasingly impersonal feel of higher education, it is a process worth celebrating. Because it is also labour-intensive, time-inefficient and messy, it offers an antidote to the brand of assembly-line education preferred by degree mills.

The thesis and dissertation serve as invaluable reminders that student engagement in the 21st century, regardless of level, has everything to do with helping scholars find authorship and agency. When students propose their topic, research it and ultimately defend it, they are more likely to experience the kind of ownership that produces the best, most accountable scholarship. Even removed from faculty guidance, extended independent research projects are valuable for the self-directed, iterative learning processes they cultivate.

However, the idea that a doctoral or master’s candidate could derive significant value from the dissertation or thesis even without faculty supervision raises the question of how meaningful, in practice, the role of director is. For example, graduate students often enrol in thesis or dissertation hours equivalent to a full-credit course, then re-enrol in those hours to work on their credit-bearing project for a second semester. However, if contact hours with supervising faculty members are minimal, as they often are, can we consider those credit hours well earned? The integrity of the thesis and dissertation process depends in large part on the activeness and availability of the director; if that director only meets in-person with their advisee once or twice a semester and again at the defence, have they not become mostly ceremonial figures, there to cement the illusion of academic legitimacy?

It isn’t that thesis advisers and dissertation directors are lazy, but that the paltry credit offered for their labours in the US system disincentivises true mentorship. While a graduate student may earn the equivalent of two full classes’ worth of credit for two semesters of thesis or dissertation work, the faculty member who signs on as director does well to earn a quarter of the credits they would otherwise earn teaching in the classroom.

Provosts may argue that because the thesis and the dissertation qualify as independent research, any credits awarded supervising faculty should reflect that supporting (read: secondary) role. Such logic works in cases where the graduate student is self-motivated and intellectually prepared, but it fails spectacularly in instances where the degree candidate needs significant retraining or academic acculturation.

The thesis or dissertation process works best with fully engaged supervisory faculty properly credited for their work. It is vital that director and degree candidate be realistic about what may be achieved in a given period of time. In my view, both grad students and their supervising faculty members are better served by shorter theses and dissertations, where greater focus and depth make for a truer simulacrum of life. PhD candidates will need to add chapters at a later date to merit publication by a scholarly or university press in any event, and the intervening years between the completion of the thesis or dissertation and its ultimate book publication serve to age the scholar and their scholarship. With candidates for advanced degrees getting younger, the postdoctoral years become more conducive to the maturative process that ripens the writer and refines the research.

For my money, the thesis or dissertation is best regarded not merely as pre-professorial training but as the beginning of collaborative intellectual enquiry designed to last a lifetime.

Zachary Michael Jack is associate professor of English at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois.

Register to continue

Why register?

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

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

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

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

How young academics are breathing new life into Horrible Histories

As the celebrated children’s historical sketch show marks its 15th anniversary, Jack Grove speaks to its head writer, history producer and PhD researchers on how scholarly sleuthing has been crucial to its long success

Alan Turing Institute governance ‘not fit for purpose’

Independent review finds evidence of clear value but calls for governance and relationships to evolve, and for stronger funding settlement

NIH raises postdoctoral salaries, but below target

Top US funding agency manages record increase in key programme for younger scientists, and sees gains in overall equity, while absorbing net cut in its annual budget

International students make me feel like an academic again

Overseas students’ respect for learning helps restore some of the authority that consumerism has stripped from UK academics, says Rania Hafez

Featured jobs

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

A Guide to Changing Your PhD Supervisor

Embarking on the challenging yet rewarding journey of a PhD is a commitment that extends beyond the confines of research papers and scholarly pursuits. Central to this academic odyssey is the relationship forged with a guiding force—the PhD supervisor. A symbiotic connection that shapes the trajectory of research, personal growth, and the overall PhD experience.

However, as the academic landscape evolves, students may find themselves at a crossroads, contemplating a decision that could reshape the course of their doctoral pursuit—changing their PhD supervisor. In this exploration, we delve into the intricate fabric of this decision-making process, dissecting the reasons behind such contemplation and weighing the nuanced pros and cons associated with altering the academic compass.

Join us on this reflective journey as we navigate the delicate terrain of academic mentorship, dissecting the potential for alignment or misalignment of research interests, the dynamics of mentorship and support, and the profound impact of diverse perspectives. Yet, with change comes disruption—weighing the cost of potential setbacks in research progress, administrative hurdles, and the intricate dance of managing relationships within the academic ecosystem.

In this discourse, we aim to unravel the layers of complexity surrounding the decision to change a PhD supervisor. Through anecdotes, insights, and careful analysis, we seek to equip Ph.D. candidates with the tools needed to make informed decisions, fostering an environment where academic and personal growth can thrive.

Embark with us on this intellectual exploration, where the nuances of change intersect with the pursuit of knowledge, and the delicate dance of transition unfolds in the pursuit of academic excellence.

Introduction

Pros of changing your phd supervisor, cons of changing your phd supervisor, how to convey my supervisor regarding change of supervisor decision, download the template here.

The foundation of any successful PhD journey lies in the dynamic between the student and their supervisor. This relationship extends beyond the academic realm, shaping not only the trajectory of research but also influencing personal and professional development. A supportive and symbiotic connection with a supervisor fosters an environment where ideas flourish, guidance is paramount, and the doctoral candidate gains invaluable insights from a seasoned mentor. This relationship becomes a cornerstone, influencing the overall satisfaction and success of the Ph.D. experience.

Despite the significance of the supervisor-student relationship, there are instances when students find themselves contemplating a change. This may arise from a variety of factors such as misaligned research interests, challenges in communication, evolving career aspirations, or even shifts in personal circumstances. A brief exploration of these reasons sets the stage for understanding the complexities that prompt candidates to reassess and, potentially, redefine this pivotal connection.

At the heart of this blog post is the examination of a decision that carries both weight and consequence—the choice to change one’s PhD supervisor. The thesis of our exploration is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons associated with such a decision.

We also delve into the delicate process of communicating this decision, recognizing the sensitivity and significance of such conversations. Just as a change in academic direction requires thoughtful consideration, conveying this decision to a supervisor demands a careful blend of professionalism, gratitude, and clarity. As we navigate through the nuances of this academic crossroads, we aim to provide insights, tips, and a sample script to assist students in approaching this conversation with respect, transparency, and a focus on the academic journey ahead.

A. Alignment of Research Interests

• Examples and Anecdotes: Picture yourself passionate about unravelling the mysteries of renewable energy sources, only to find your initial supervisor specializes in historical architecture. By making the courageous decision to change supervisors, you align yourself with an expert in sustainable energy. This shift not only reignites your enthusiasm but also establishes a connection between your passion and your research, turning your academic journey into a fulfilling exploration.
• Impact on Research Productivity and Satisfaction: The impact of this alignment on research productivity and satisfaction cannot be overstated. Your newfound synergy with a supervisor who shares your research interests streamlines the process. Meetings become more fruitful, discussions more engaging, and the satisfaction derived from your work transforms from a mere academic obligation to a genuine intellectual pursuit.

B. Better Mentorship and Support

• Illustrative Cases: Consider the case of Sarah, who initially struggled with a lack of communication and mentorship in her first year. Changing supervisors led her to Dr. Rodriguez, known for her hands-on mentoring approach. This shift not only transformed Sarah’s academic journey but also instilled a sense of confidence and direction, illustrating the profound impact of effective mentorship.
• Personal and Academic Development: The metamorphosis brought about by improved mentorship extends beyond academic realms. Dr. Rodriguez’s investment in Sarah’s personal and academic growth not only refined her research skills but also nurtured her self-confidence. Sarah emerged from this mentorship with a more profound understanding of her strengths and a fortified sense of academic purpose.

C. Diverse Perspectives

• Experiences of Gaining Different Perspectives: Enter the world of Alex, who transitioned from a supervisor entrenched in qualitative research to one with a robust quantitative background. This shift opened avenues for Alex to integrate diverse methodologies, leading to a more comprehensive and nuanced research approach. The amalgamation of these perspectives not only enriched the research process but also broadened Alex’s intellectual horizons.
• Enrichment of Research and Academic Growth: The exposure to diverse perspectives became the catalyst for academic growth. Engaging with varied viewpoints became a cornerstone of Alex’s intellectual development. This enrichment not only strengthened the quality of the research but also equipped Alex with a versatile set of skills crucial for navigating the intricate landscape of academia.

D. Career Opportunities

• Stories of Enhanced Opportunities: Meet James, who, through a change in supervisor, found himself immersed in collaborative projects and international conferences. This shift not only enhanced his academic portfolio but also created avenues for industry collaborations. The diverse experiences gained under the new supervision became stepping stones for James’s future career opportunities.
• Broadening Professional Networks: Changing supervisors often means entering new academic circles. In Lily’s case, this shift broadened her professional networks, exposing her to different conferences, workshops, and collaborative opportunities. The ripple effect of these connections extended beyond the academic realm, positioning Lily for a more expansive and interconnected professional journey.

E. Personal Growth

• Adapting to New Challenges: Imagine the story of Mark, who faced unforeseen challenges upon changing supervisors. The adjustment period, though daunting, became a testament to Mark’s adaptability. This ability to navigate uncharted waters not only demonstrated resilience but also contributed to Mark’s personal growth, reinforcing his capacity to thrive amidst academic uncertainties.
• Building Resilience and Adaptability: Mark’s journey highlights that personal growth extends beyond the realm of academia. The challenges faced during the transition nurtured not only resilience but also adaptability. These qualities, now ingrained in Mark’s academic persona, serve as invaluable assets not just for his PhD journey but for his future professional endeavours.

A. Disruption in Progress

• Impact on Research Timeline: Consider the case of Emily, who, midway through her PhD, changed supervisors due to a shift in research focus. This transition resulted in a temporary disruption in her research timeline as she needed to recalibrate her methodologies and refine her research questions. The adjustments, while necessary for alignment, extended the overall duration of her Ph.D. project.
• Strategies for Minimizing Disruptions: To minimize disruptions, Emily proactively engaged in regular communication with both her previous and new supervisors. This strategic approach allowed for a smoother transition, as she could carry forward valuable insights from her initial work while incorporating the guidance of her new supervisor. Open and transparent communication became the cornerstone for mitigating the impact on her research timeline.

B. Administrative Hassles

• Navigating University Procedures: John’s decision to change his supervisor involved navigating complex university procedures. From obtaining approvals to filling out paperwork, the administrative process proved to be a bureaucratic challenge. The intricacies of university protocols can be time-consuming and stressful, adding an administrative layer to an already nuanced decision.
• Addressing Logistical Challenges: John tackled administrative hassles by seeking guidance from academic advisors and administrative staff. Proactive planning and careful adherence to university guidelines helped streamline the administrative process. By addressing logistical challenges promptly, John mitigated the bureaucratic hurdles associated with changing supervisors.

C. Limited Options

• Challenges in Finding a Suitable Alternative: Amy faced the challenge of limited options when searching for an alternative supervisor. The specialized nature of her research narrowed the pool of available academics with expertise in her field. This limitation created a dilemma, as finding a suitable alternative proved to be a meticulous process requiring careful consideration of academic compatibility.
• Exploring Available Options within the Institution: Amy expanded her search by exploring potential supervisors within her institution who had overlapping interests. Collaborating with academic advisors and department heads, she identified alternative mentors who could provide the necessary guidance. While challenging, this exploration within the institution allowed Amy to make a well-informed choice, considering both expertise and compatibility.

D. Potential for Miscommunication

• Addressing Communication Challenges During the Transition: Michael encountered communication challenges when transitioning to a new supervisor, leading to misunderstandings regarding research expectations. The potential for miscommunication became apparent during the initial stages of the transition, affecting the clarity of project goals and timelines.
• Strategies for Clear Communication: Recognizing the importance of clear communication, Michael initiated regular meetings with the new supervisor. Setting clear expectations, discussing project milestones, and seeking feedback became integral components of their communication strategy. By addressing potential miscommunication head-on, Michael established a foundation for a more effective working relationship.

E. Impact on Relationships

• Navigating Interpersonal Dynamics with the Previous Supervisor and Colleagues: When Emma changed supervisors, she faced the delicate task of navigating interpersonal dynamics with her previous supervisor and colleagues. This transition required tact and diplomacy, as maintaining positive relationships with the academic community was crucial for a harmonious academic environment.
• Maintaining a Positive Academic Environment: Emma proactively engaged in open and honest conversations with her previous supervisor, expressing gratitude for the mentorship received. She also communicated transparently with colleagues about her decision, emphasizing that the change was driven by research alignment. By approaching the transition with professionalism and respect, Emma succeeded in maintaining a positive academic environment, fostering goodwill among her peers.

1. Choose the Right Time and Setting:

• Schedule a meeting with your current supervisor in a private and comfortable setting.
• Ensure that you have enough time for a thorough discussion without interruptions.

2. Be Prepared:

• Reflect on your decision and be clear about your reasons for wanting to change supervisors.
• Consider preparing a brief outline or notes to help you articulate your thoughts during the conversation.

3. Start Positively:

• Begin the conversation on a positive note by expressing your appreciation for the guidance and support you have received so far.
• Acknowledge the contributions of your current supervisor to your academic journey.

4. Be Honest and Direct:

• Clearly state your decision to change supervisors. Use straightforward language to avoid any ambiguity.
• If applicable, briefly explain the reasons behind your decision. Focus on academic or research-related factors rather than personal issues.

5. Highlight Your Goals:

• Emphasize that your decision is driven by your academic and research goals. Highlight the importance of aligning your research interests with your supervisor to ensure a more productive collaboration.

6. Express Gratitude:

• Express gratitude for the time and effort your current supervisor has invested in your academic development.
• Reinforce that your decision is about finding the best possible fit for your research objectives.

7. Offer Solutions:

• If applicable, suggest potential solutions or ways to ease the transition. This could include a plan for completing any ongoing projects or assisting in the search for a replacement.

8. Be Open to Discussion:

• Encourage an open dialogue. Allow your supervisor to express their thoughts and ask questions.
• Be receptive to feedback and be willing to discuss any concerns your supervisor may have.

9. Follow Up in Writing:

• After the meeting, send a follow-up email reiterating your decision and expressing gratitude.
• Include any agreed-upon next steps or arrangements for a smooth transition.

10. Maintain Professionalism:

• Throughout the conversation, maintain a professional and respectful tone.
• Avoid placing blame or speaking negatively about your current supervisor.

Sample Script:

“Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I want to express my sincere appreciation for your guidance and support during our collaboration. After careful consideration, I have made the decision to change supervisors. This decision is driven by a desire to align my research interests more closely with my academic goals. I believe this change will contribute positively to my academic journey. I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition and am open to discussing any concerns or suggestions you may have. I value the time we’ve spent working together and appreciate your understanding.”

Remember that communication is key in these situations, and approaching the conversation with professionalism and clarity will contribute to a more constructive dialogue.

Email Template to Convey Your Decision to Change Supervisor

Subject: Request for a Meeting to Discuss Research Direction

Dear [Supervisor’s Name],

I trust this message finds you well. I appreciate the support and guidance you have provided throughout our collaboration. Your insights have been invaluable to my academic journey.

After careful consideration and reflection, I have come to the decision to explore a change in my supervisory arrangement. This decision is rooted in my commitment to align my research interests more closely with my academic goals, and I believe that a different supervisory dynamic may better support the direction I intend to take with my research.

I would like to request a meeting to discuss this matter further. I believe that an open and honest conversation will allow us to explore the best path forward. I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition and would like to discuss any concerns or suggestions you may have. Your feedback is important to me, and I want to ensure that this decision is made with the utmost professionalism and consideration.

I propose we schedule a meeting at your earliest convenience. Please let me know a time that works for you, and I will make the necessary arrangements.

Thank you once again for your support, and I look forward to discussing this matter with you.

Best regards,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Program/Department]

[Your Contact Information]

Read my article on ” Can you do a PhD without a supervisor” . This article will guide you on how one can do PhD without a research supervisor.

In the intricate tapestry of a Ph.D. journey, the decision to change supervisor stands as a pivotal crossroads, demanding careful contemplation and strategic navigation. As we explored the myriad facets of this complex choice, it became evident that the pros and cons are as diverse as the academic landscapes each student traverses.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• PhD or Industry Job? A Comprehensive Career Guide
• Post Doc Positions in India
• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• How to Put Research Grants on Your CV ?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Cover Image

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

Your supervision filter

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

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

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

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Centred Supervisory Leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Resources

Supervising PhDs

UKCGE Good Supervisory Practice Framework .

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

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

Get Email Alerts

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

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

• First Online: 15 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Zoë J. Ayres 2  

8557 Accesses

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

(Trigger Warnings: bullying, harassment, sexual harassment)

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zoë J. Ayres

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

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

Download citation

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

Published : 15 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

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

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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

Project Offier - Diversity & Inclusion

Senior Lecturer - Earth System Science

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

Aarhus University logo

Graduate School of Natural Sciences

Aligning expectations.

Your supervisor(s) plays a key role in your PhD education. They will help you learn, develop and progress in your research by offering insight, advice and discussion as you go along. Therefore, the GSNS strongly recommends that you and your supervisor(s) have a frank and honest discussion about your mutual expectations for the PhD programme both when initiating your PhD project , e.g. when you first fill in MyPhD together and continuously during your PhD programme. We suggest having the following topics on the agenda:

Define your project and clarify independence

Your project may have predefined targets and/or be part of a larger research project. This is normal as research rarely occurs in isolation. Clarify these targets with your supervisor(s) from the beginning. Identify elements that you can (or are expected to) develop independently. In our experience, students and supervisors can have different expectations regarding the independence of the project and a discussion of this early on may prevent later conflict.  

Plan your supervision

Some supervisors like to be heavily involved in day-to-day planning. Others prefer that students lead the planning of daily research activities, teaching, course and conference participation etc. Make sure you understand your supervisor(s) preferred way of working, but feel free to suggest alternative ways that fit your needs better. Having a clear agreement about your supervisory meetings is essential. Formalize you meetings by agreeing on:

• their frequency
• who does what regarding scheduling, agenda and distribution of summaries
• communication frequency and form if one of you is abroad

Some supervisors have an 'open door' policy and are available for ad hoc supervision. Even when this is the case, the GSNS strongly recommends that you also have formal, regular, pre-scheduled meetings to ensure that you discuss not only your research project, but also all other aspects of your PhD education. This could also be an opportunity to address potential problems early on or if possible even before they arise.

A PhD student will always have one main supervisor and sometimes one or more co-supervisors. Other students, post docs and technicians may also have (informal) roles as advisors or collaborators in your project. We recommend that you ask your main supervisor for a clear description of the role of any additional supervisors/advisors in the PhD, and clarity on when and how you can approach them.

Plan your integration into the research group

As part of a larger research group or section, you will need to participate in group activities, including lab meetings, journal clubs etc. Prioritising scientific as well as social activities is important – feeling lonely is not going to be good for your well-being, progress and productivity. Ask your supervisor(s) how best to participate in the life of your research group.

Agree on working hours and daily presence

Prepare to be flexible regarding working hours and presence in the lab/office. Many scientists work long days during peak periods of lab or fieldwork, or before a deadline, but then have the benefit of flexibility and shorter days in other periods. Let your supervisor(s) explain how this usually works in their research group and let them know if you are challenged by this, for example because of family commitments.

Plan your writing

It may be hard to think about writing and publications at the very beginning of your PhD project.  However, learning to write scientifically will take some time and work. Therefore, it is useful to know your supervisors’ preferred way of working on papers etc., including their procedure for feedback. Also, ask for a general introduction into how co-authorships are agreed.  

Note that the GSNS offers courses in Scientific Writing and Communication. For more info, see our page with transferable skills courses .

Prioritise your time

As a student, you are involved in many different activities including research, teaching, writing, outreach, participating in conferences and networks, research visits, taking courses etc. This is what makes research so exciting and rewarding – but it also calls for careful planning. Create an overview and a timetable for your PhD project. Your supervisor(s) can help you with this. Discuss how in your initial meetings.

Note that the GSNS offers courses in how to plan and manage a PhD project. For more info, see our page with transferable skills courses .

Need further help?

Various tools are available to take any awkwardness out of the conversation when aligning expectations and to help ensure you cover all the important topics. Your supervisor is likely to know of these and can take the lead if you choose to use any of them. Click her to find the description for supervisors on these tools .

You are always welcome to contact the GSNS with issues that your supervisor(s) is unable or unsuitable, to help with. This includes any personal, practical, scientific or collaboration challenges you may face. See our website for contact info on  your PhD partner .

Preventing and managing stress

It is important to take care of your mental health during a PhD study programme. On this page, you can learn more about preventing, detecting and managing unhealthy stress.

Our cookies

We use cookies for three reasons: to give you the best experience on PGS, to make sure the PGS ads you see on other sites are relevant , and to measure website usage. Some of these cookies are necessary to help the site work properly and can’t be switched off. Cookies also support us to provide our services for free, and by click on “Accept” below, you are agreeing to our use of cookies .You can manage your preferences now or at any time.

Privacy overview

We use cookies, which are small text files placed on your computer, to allow the site to work for you, improve your user experience, to provide us with information about how our site is used, and to deliver personalised ads which help fund our work and deliver our service to you for free.

The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.

You can accept all, or else manage cookies individually. However, blocking some types of cookies may affect your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

You can change your cookies preference at any time by visiting our Cookies Notice page. Please remember to clear your browsing data and cookies when you change your cookies preferences. This will remove all cookies previously placed on your browser.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, or how to clear your browser cookies data see our Cookies Notice

Manage consent preferences

Strictly necessary cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems.

They are essential for you to browse the website and use its features.

You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. We can’t identify you from these cookies.

Functional cookies

These help us personalise our sites for you by remembering your preferences and settings. They may be set by us or by third party providers, whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies, then these services may not function properly.

Performance cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and see where our traffic comes from, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are popular and see how visitors move around the site. The cookies cannot directly identify any individual users.

If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site and will not be able to improve its performance for you.

Marketing cookies

These cookies may be set through our site by social media services or our advertising partners. Social media cookies enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They can track your browser across other sites and build up a profile of your interests. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to see or use the content sharing tools.

Advertising cookies may be used to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but work by uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will still see ads, but they won’t be tailored to your interests.

What to Expect From a PhD

04 th September 2020

• Post on Facebook
• Send to a friend
• Recommend 1

Your PhD will be unlike many of your previous academic experiences. While you will be attached to a University, the majority of your learning will be self-funded. It is academically challenging, occasionally isolating and requires a lot of self-motivation, but for the right candidate it can be a phenomenally rewarding experience.

What Should You Expect From Your Course?

A PhD qualification is predominantly research-based and students will be responsible for their own learning and development. Knowledge is less acquired from class-room based teaching and more from critical reading and experimentation.

In terms of course structure, a PhD will be significantly different from your Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree. It should take from 3-4 years and will culminate in a thesis which outlines what you have learnt from your specific research area.

Your thesis will be a document containing approximately 80,000 words (although this will depend on your specialism) and it will be broken down into chapters. Ideally students should have some of their research published throughout their course of study.

Each student will be given a supervisor who will monitor their progress and (occasionally) give feedback on the research.

What Should You Expect from Your Tutors?

Your supervisor will be there to guide and support you as well as provide you with a sense of direction throughout your PhD qualification. What they are not expected to do is spoon-feed you information.

A supervisor’s feedback on your thesis will often be critical, and come the submission period, your supervisor should play a key role in helping you present your research in an original manner.

Given that there isn’t much contact time in terms of lectures and seminars, it is important that your tutor remain in regular contact with you, and you should arrange meetings as often as possible to discuss your project.

Normally the relationship between student and supervisor is a smooth process, but occasionally problems may arise. If this is the case, you should mention it to a pastoral advisor at your University.

What Will Be Expected of You?

Your tutor will expect you to work hard and be enthusiastic about your research and thesis. They will be very busy people, with work of their own to do, so it is important that you respect their time and contribution to your project. If you arrange a meeting then make sure you turn up, and if you’ve a deadline looming then ensure that your work is submitted on time.

Sometimes a supervisor may also be working on their own research projects. If this is the case, then they may allow students to help them with their research while being careful to ensure that it doesn’t impact upon their studies. It doesn’t often happen, but a supervisor should not simply expect their student to assist – it isn’t a compulsory part of your PhD!

What About Your Social Life?

While you’re studying for your PhD, your research and thesis will be the focus of your existence and you will, most probably, spend most of your time carrying out research.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to have a life outside of your PhD - it is important to socialise with fellow students and old friends, but you should be aware that at this level, you shouldn’t expect to have the same student experience that you did during your undergrad or at Master's level.

Next Step: Search for  PhD courses  

DON'T MISS OUT

Receive regular newsletters packed with useful tips.

Converting a Postgraduate Certificate to a Masters

PG certificates are a perfect stepping stone to a Masters degree as you’ll not only...

Five Reasons to do a Postgraduate Diploma

CONTENTS What is a postgraduate diploma? Employability Time Constraints Career...

Tips and Tricks for a Successful Postgraduate Interview...

CONTENTS Do background research Find out about interview format Review...

Similar articles and videos

How to become a speech and language therapist, how to become a paramedic, how to be disciplined when distance learning, try before you buy with a mooc, don't miss out.

A guide for first year PhD students: Expectations, responsibilities, advice

The first year of a PhD can feel like a rollercoaster ride. First-year PhD students are ambitious and want to fulfil expectations. At the same time, they may be unsure of what these expectations and their responsibilities are. This guide aims to provide first-year PhD students with some directions and advice.

Disclaimer: This post may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you make a purchase using the links below at  no additional cost to you.  I only recommend products or services that I truly believe can benefit my audience. As always, my opinions are my own.

The first year as a PhD student: Excitement, ambition, overwhelm

What to expect as a first-year phd student, responsibilities of a first-year phd student, a supervisor’s expectations of a first-year phd student, thesis/dissertation, academic skills, relationships and networking, health and well-being.

Starting a PhD is exciting. Securing a PhD position is a major life event, and often something that first-year year PhD students have been working towards for a long time.

Many PhD students cannot wait to start. They already want to prepare in the weeks and months leading up to their new positions. And once they do start, they are full of energy, ambitions and plans.

First-year PhD students want to do well, make progress with their projects and meet their supervisors’ expectations. However, it is not always clear what that means.

“Am I doing enough? Do I make enough progress? Am I smart enough? Did I bite off more than I can chew?”

Questions like these, and insecurities, often develop early on in a PhD journey.

Furthermore, starting in a new environment can also be draining. There are new colleagues, new processes, and many unwritten rules in academia. Coupled with open questions about the direction of one’s PhD research, the first year can feel overwhelming.

To avoid overwhelm, it helps to know that the first year of a PhD involves much more than just figuring out one’s research. And absolutely normal to feel lost from time to time.

Succeeding in academia has many facets, including your thesis or dissertation, but also learning new skills, and developing relationships with supervisors, colleagues and scholars in your field. All of that takes energy.

Set realistic expectations for yourself in the first year of your PhD. Not everything will work out as planned. Research takes time, and setbacks are inevitable.

Doing a PhD is often experienced as very stressful : many PhD students are perfectionists, and a PhD requires a lot of self-responsibility. Consequently, PhD work tends to feel very personal, and criticism can sting.

First-year PhD students can deal with ‘failures’ more constructively by realizing that failures are an inevitable part of academic work, and by adopting a more welcoming attitude to criticism and feedback.

First-year PhD students can also expect to read and explore a lot. At times, this involves going down the rabbit hole of academic literature: processing new information, frameworks and perspectives before discarding them again.

Thinking, researching, experimenting, writing and editing are not straightforward processes, and a lot of learning takes place along the way.

Specific requirements and responsibilities of a first-year PhD student differ from programme to programme.

However, frequently a key responsibility of a PhD student is to develop a firm research proposal in the first year, which is often coupled with an extensive literature review.

This requires first-year PhD students to immerse themselves in the relevant literature. However, it is also recommended to read a bit outside of your field or discipline to gain new perspectives.

If a PhD programme involves course work, as is for instance the case in North America much more than in Europe, then planning and starting coursework is also often a responsibility during the first year.

All in all, a first-year PhD student is responsible to get organised and create a feasible plan for the coming years. The first year is meant to set the foundation for the PhD trajectory .

Unless the PhD programme is followed online, and unless there is a pandemic raging, first-year PhD students are additionally often expected to actively participate in the research group, lab or department in which they are based.

Active participation can range from simply showing up regularly, to attending lunches with colleagues, attending research events or presenting preliminary findings.

The internet is full of horror stories of PhD supervisors having extremely unrealistic expectations of first-year PhD students. For instance, several publications in the first year.

While this can certainly happen, I dare to say that this is not the norm.

Again, specific expectations or requirements in terms of performance and output of first-year PhD students can differ from university to university, and from supervisor to supervisor.

Beyond that, however, there are several expectations that many PhD supervisors have of first-year PhD students.

For instance, PhD supervisors tend to appreciate some levels of regularity and consistency. While it is absolutely normal to have periods where you make more progress (for instance in writing) than in others, it is not good to contact your supervisor every day for a month, and then fall off the earth for half a year.

Consistency goes hand in hand with good communication. Communication, respect and openness are fundamental elements in a good supervisor-supervisee relationship.

Many supervisors prefer first-year PhD students to ask for help and support if they experience roadblocks of any kind, instead of finding out that after a year no progress was made.

Lastly, supervisors often expect PhD students to take matters into their own hands. Instead of simply waiting for instruction, this means that first-year PhD students should be in the driver’s seat of their journey. Therefore, it is no surprise that proactiveness is one of the 10 qualities of successful PhD students.

25 things every first year PhD student should do

To turn the more abstract discussion on expectations and responsibilities into more concrete advice, the following list includes 25 things (divided into five categories) that every first-year PhD student should do.

• Read as much as you can. Write down your thoughts and observations.
• Develop a system to keep track of the literature you are reading (for instance through an excel file, notebooks, or a reference manager like Zotero ).
• Develop a literature review on your research topic.
• Familiarise yourself with your university’s PhD requirements (such as length, number of publications, required coursework, etc.).
• Read a few PhD theses from your field and university to understand what is ultimately expected from you.
• Get into the habit of writing . It does not have to be purely academic text. Write down your observations, write blog posts, and write a research diary. The more you write, the easier it gets.
• Develop a good system of communication and effective supervision meetings with your PhD supervisor/s.
• Get into the habit of talking about your research. Speak to your friends about your work, and discuss some readings with your colleagues. Try to formulate your thoughts in an accessible way. The more you do this, the easier it gets.
• Present something in a friendly environment (such as your research group) to practice public speaking .
• Learn how to prioritise tasks . Sometimes, prioritising one task means ruthlessly dropping others. Get comfortable with it. No one can do it all.
• Get to know your supervisor/s . Learn about their research and activities, their preferences and things like their preferred way of communicating. Don’t just expect your supervisor/s to adjust to your preferences, also adjust to theirs.
• Be present in your department, lab or research group. Chat with colleagues, exchange information, support each other and socialise. Collaboration is always better than competition.
• Develop a good support network outside of work. Even the nicest PhD trajectory can be stressful and frustrating from time to time. Know who has your back and can provide support and/or distraction when needed.
• Get to know the administrators and secretaries of your university. They hold a lot of power and you want them on your side!
• Start your online presence by filling out your university profile page, and setting up a professional Twitter account or a LinkedIn profile. You want people to be able to find information about you and your research online.
• Observe your energy levels and find your rhythm. Some people concentrate better in the morning, others late at night. Figure out when to tackle difficult tasks, when to schedule meetings, and when to take breaks. A PhD is not a regular 9 to 5 job. If you have flexibility in your time planning, optimise your routine so that it fits you .
• Be kind to yourself. When having negative thoughts, speak them out loud. Would you talk to your friends or colleagues the same way you talk to yourself? Probably not. Be forgiving and compassionate if you have a bad day.
• Foster an identity outside of your PhD by taking time for instance for hobbies, family and friends. It will help you to separate your self-worth from your PhD work.
• Prioritise your health and well-being . This involves for example getting proper sleep , exercising and eating healthily. Not only will you feel better, but your work will also benefit.
• Take proper breaks. Getting burnout is not a badge of honour or testimony to your dedication. Work smarter, not harder.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Deciding between a one- or a two-year master's degree

Email signatures for phd students (content, tips and examples), related articles.

The best answers to “What are your plans for the future?”

How hard is it to get a PhD? Definitely not easy!

Ten reasons NOT to pursue an academic career

Why do you deserve a scholarship? 10 outstanding justifications