supervising phd students

Sign in Create an account

Item added to basket, item added to wishlist.

• Bloomsbury Academic

Supervising your PhDs: Getting the best out of the supervisory relationship

Mike bottery, nigel wright and mark a. fabrizi on supervising phds, words by mike bottery, nigel wright and mark a. fabrizi | nov 10 2023.

Supervisory relationships need to be viewed as potentially the most valuable relationship in a doctoral student’s journey. Mike Bottery, Nigel Wright and Mark A. Fabrizi argue that, in the best relationships, supervisors will vary that support to match the student’s emerging needs and skills.

Sometimes the meaning of supervisor or advisor is taken as read, perhaps meaning something like the role of someone observing and directing another in the execution of a task or activity , and that it therefore needs no further discussion. We think this is a dangerous assumption to make, in part because observing and directing are very different activities, and the emphasis placed on one or the other in a relationship can result in very different relationship dynamics. It is then really important for the parties to arrive at a joint understanding of such roles if they are going to be working from the same script. If they fail to appreciate the potential differences, serious difficulties may result in terms of how they expect each other to behave.

We strongly suggest that the term ‘supervisor’ is not a neutral term, but has a spectrum of meanings, particularly with respect to the manner in which control and direction are negotiated within the relationship. In our book, Writing a Watertight Thesis , we look at possible ways in which the supervisory (or advisory ) role can be enacted.

Supervisory roles and the need to be adaptable

Some students may support the notion that a ‘supervisor/advisor’ role should be that of an Instructor – where the role comprises the laying down of the rules of conduct and behaviour in the relationship, and the thesis focus and direction, in effect a supervisory role which tells the student what to do, and ensures that they do it.

Others may support the notion of a supervisor as an Overseer – someone who thinks they should oversee the structure and direction of the student’s work, but also to inspect what is produced, and then to advise on what should be kept and what should be changed.

A third and rather different form of supervision is what Guccione and Wellington (2017) describe as a Coach , an individual who will ‘minimize the advising they do, and instead ask questions that spark critical thinking’. This then is a significant change in how the role is conceived, for it is not nearly as directive as the first two, and whilst a supervisor adopting this role may still have in-depth knowledge of the thesis, and may provide good advice, actual decisions will very largely be made by the student.

Finally, there is another potential supervisory role, very different from an instructor: this is a Cheerleader , someone who certainly does a lot of observing, but not a lot of instructing. Instead, they provide encouragement and support to the student, for as they see it, their role is to stand on the touchline, doing a great deal more supporting and cheering, and much less instructing or advising, so leaving the student to make the major decisions in the doctorate.

We need to make an important point here: the best relationships (i.e. those which contribute most to attaining a doctorate) aren’t ones which retain the same roles or characteristics throughout the period of study. Instead, they are ones where the role needs to vary with the situation encountered, and more importantly, which encourage a more general change in the supervisory role, away from student dependence towards greater student independence. At the beginning of a programme, it is not unusual for students to welcome a supervisor who adopts the role of an Instructor, because they may be unsure of what they need to do at the start. Such students will probably welcome critiques of their work which provide them with better understanding of its quality, and how to improve on this. Moreover, supervisors increasingly work within rubrics outlined by their university and/or government, in which elements of advice and oversight from them to the student are expected to continue right through to the submission of the thesis.

However, when Phillips and Pugh (in How to Get a PhD ) talk of supervision, they talk not only of the management of the student by the supervisor, but also of the management of the supervisor by the student. This suggests that not only does the student need on occasions to be the proactive partner in this relationship, but also that the supervisory role may well need on occasions to change from combinations of Instructor and Overseer to ones of Coach and Cheerleader, and then perhaps move back again as the situation demands.

The value of fluid relationship dynamics

We favour this mixed and changing approach for two reasons. First is simply that different problems or issues are likely to call for different kinds of engagement between student and supervisor. Second, accepting the need for a proactive student role in a supervisory relationship also recognizes that this relationship needs to change during the doctoral programme, in order to encourage the candidate to become much more the expert on their chosen topic. So even if, at the start, the role of supervisor as Instructor/Overseer is agreed by both parties as being the role the relationship should currently be based on, it will still need to change later. The role of Coach, then, which asks questions to spark further critical (and creative) thinking in a thesis where direction and focus are now well set, will very likely increase, and as the student takes on more and more responsibility for the ultimate production of the thesis, a spoonful of the Cheerleader role may well be necessary as a morale booster during difficult periods on the doctoral journey. A good supervisor will then tailor their supervision to meet the differing needs and the various problems which students experience. If this kind of transition by supervisor and student doesn’t occur, then both parties should be concerned.

"I strongly suggest that doctoral students read this book. The wisdom and the experience of the authors helped me, a beginning researcher, to write a watertight thesis, leading me to a successful research and writing career."

Chang junyue, professor and vice president of foreign languages, dalian university, china, the changing student approach.

It would be a mistake for any supervisor to believe that the student can be viewed as a tabula rasa, upon which the supervisor inscribes what they want. Both parties contribute to the dynamics of the relationship, coming to it not only with personal wishes, and fully or partially formed ideas about supervision, but perhaps also holding very different ideas about the best ways of achieving a doctorate. So just as supervisors can be Directors, Overseers, Coaches or Cheerleaders, so students may adopt similar or opposite approaches. They could then be:

• Passive Implementers;
• Deferential Helpers;
• Active Thesis Managers; or
• Executive Leaders.

This does not mean that a student will adopt the role which is the same, or the mirror image of that adopted by their supervisor. As the illustration below suggests, there are many possible interactions with these sets of approaches.

Some of these approaches may fit well together, whilst other combinations are likely to create considerable tension. Moreover, some supervisors or students may modify their intended approach when they encounter the approach the other takes in the relationship. Finally, if, as we argue, the relationship needs to move towards greater student independence as the doctorate progresses, then there will be times of real unpredictability in the relationship, even as it moves towards a relationship based very largely around the lower right-hand corner of the grid. Such dynamics then contribute to the creation of unique supervisory relationships. The text of this blog post has been extracted from Chapter 6 of Writing a Watertight Thesis: Structure, Demystification and Defence , and edited to appear here with the authors’ permission.

About the authors

Mike Bottery is Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Hull, UK. Nigel Wright is a retired Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Hull, UK. Mark A. Fabrizi is Professor of English Education and Chair of the Department of Education at Eastern Connecticut State University, USA. Buy the book or request an inspection/exam copy .

• Teaching tips
• All articles
• Book excerpts
• Study skills

Explore more blog articles

Eleanor Drage and Kerry McInerney on The Good Robot

How do we create ‘good’ technology.

Too often, conversations about feminism and technology are limited to the representation of women in…

Aug 16 2024

Simon Griffiths on British Politics and a post-election analysis

Labour victory, conservative collapse and the crisis in westminster.

Until this month, Labour had not won a general election for almost 20 years. Although the victory wa…

Aug 09 2024

Tia Ali on books that are reshaping research and academia

A decolonial reading list.

In a world built on the enduring inequality of colonialism, we at Bloomsbury want our academic publi…

Aug 02 2024

Jaber Baker and Uğur Ümit Üngör on Syrian Gulag

The syrian gulag – on researching a silent killing machine.

On March 19, 2002, I [Jaber Baker] was arrested by the Assad regime’s infamous Military Intelligence…

Jul 26 2024

Stella Cottrell on how to approach teaching study skills

10 ways to incorporate study skills into your teaching.

Supporting a great learning experience, gaining great course metrics, happy students, what’s not to…

Jul 19 2024

George Connor discusses the barriers working-class students face

Who gets to study classics.

There can be few areas of study in the UK – or indeed overseas – which is so assailed by perceptions…

Jul 12 2024

Johannes Nathan on the art market

Johannes nathan: “like our language, art is a central pillar of our identity”.

Jack Solloway: Johannes, thank you for taking the time to chat with us. Johannes Nathan: My pleasur…

Jul 05 2024

Selma Dabbagh on Nawal El Saadawi’s landmark novel

"one of the best examples of effective political fiction ever produced".

Direct, uncompromising and devastating, Woman at Point Zero is her landmark novel, which tells the s…

Jun 28 2024

Adam Geczy & Vicki Karaminas on Queer Style

What is ‘queer fashion’.

There is no strict definition for queer style, and yet it is identifiable, present, and a powerful v…

Jun 21 2024

News & Offers

Academic education.

Free US delivery on orders $35 or over

Useful Links

• Bloomsbury Offices
• Osprey Publishing
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Modern Slavery Statement
• Cookie Policy
• Click to Change Cookie Settings
• Customer Service
• Returns & Cancellations

Bloomsbury Publishing Inc

Registered Office: 1385 Broadway, Fifth Floor, New York, NY 10018 USA

© Bloomsbury Publishing Inc 2024

School account restrictions

Your School account is not valid for the United States site. You have been logged out of your account.

You are on the United States site. Would you like to go to the United States site?

Error message.

You are about to change your location

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 organization 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

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 188,400 academics and researchers from 5,027 institutions.

Register now

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

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

The lessons I learnt supervising master’s students for the first time

• Emilio Dorigatti 0

Emilio Dorigatti is a PhD student in data science and bioinformatics at the Munich School for Data Science in Germany, working on new ways to design vaccines for cancer.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

I started my PhD wanting to improve not only my scientific abilities, but also ‘soft skills’ such as communication, mentoring and project management. To this end, I joined as many social academic activities as I could find, including journal clubs, seminars, teaching assistance, hackathons, presentations and collaborations.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02028-1

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

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Research management

How to win funding to talk about your science

Career Feature 15 AUG 24

Friends or foes? An academic job search risked damaging our friendship

Career Column 14 AUG 24

‘Who will protect us from seeing the world’s largest rainforest burn?’ The mental exhaustion faced by climate scientists

Career Feature 12 AUG 24

These labs have prepared for a big earthquake — will it be enough?

News 18 AUG 24

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

The need for equity in Brazilian scientific funding

Correspondence 13 AUG 24

Canadian graduate-salary boost will only go to a select few

A hike of postdoc salary alone will not retain the best researchers in low- or middle-income countries

Postdoctoral Fellow in Epigenetics/RNA Biology in the Lab of Yvonne Fondufe-Mittendorf

Van Andel Institute’s (VAI) Professor Yvonne Fondufe-Mittendorf, Ph.D. is hiring a Postdoctoral Fellow to join the lab and carry out an independent...

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Van Andel Institute

Faculty Positions in Center of Bioelectronic Medicine, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

SLS invites applications for multiple tenure-track/tenured faculty positions at all academic ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Faculty Positions, Aging and Neurodegeneration, Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine

Applicants with expertise in aging and neurodegeneration and related areas are particularly encouraged to apply.

Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine (WLLSB)

Faculty Positions in Chemical Biology, Westlake University

We are seeking outstanding scientists to lead vigorous independent research programs focusing on all aspects of chemical biology including...

Assistant Professor Position in Genomics

The Lewis-Sigler Institute at Princeton University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in Genomics.

Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, US

The Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University

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

Quick links

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

Teaching & Learning

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

Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction  

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

1 August 2019

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

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

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

Successful research needs good supervision.

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

What supervision means

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

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

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

This could include helping students to:

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

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

Rules and regulations

Phd supervision.

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

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

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

Undergraduate and Masters supervision

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

You should attend other training around research supervision. 

• Supervision training available through UCL Arena .

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

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

Check that your student:

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

Make sure your student is aware of:

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

The UCL Good Supervision Guide  (for PhD supervisors)

Establishing an effective relationship

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

An early discussion about both of your expectations is essential:

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

Styles of supervision

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

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

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

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

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

Checking the student’s progress

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

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

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

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

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

Encourage your student to write early and often.

Checking your own performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every research supervision can be different – and equally rewarding.

Where to find help and support

• Research supervision web pages from the UCL Arena Centre, including details of the compulsory Research Supervision online course. 
• Appropriate Forms of Supervision Guide from the UCL Academic Manual
• the PhD diaries
• Good Supervision videos  (Requires UCL login)
• The UCL Doctoral School
• Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees
• Doctoral Skills Development programme
• Student skills support (including academic writing)
• Student Support and Wellbeing
• UCL Students' Union (UCLU)  
• UCL Careers

External resources

• Vitae: supervising a doctorate
• 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 UCL Arena . You are welcome to use this guide if you are from another educational facility, but you must credit UCL Arena. 

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

Research supervision at UCL

Connected Curriculum: a framework for research-based education

The Laidlaw research and leadership programme (for undergraduates)

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre 

Download a printable copy of this guide  

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

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

Education events

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

Advising for progress: tips for PhD supervisors

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

The role of supervising on PhD students’ progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practices to supervise for progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Productivity
• Self-tracking
• Supervision

Luis P. Prieto

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

Google Scholar profile

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

Jan 8, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to choose a PhD supervisor 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your PhD Thesis. On one page.

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

What is the role of a supervisor?

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

In other words: they advise, you decide. 

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

Primarily, their job is:

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

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

What does a supervisor not do?

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

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

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

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

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

What you need to do to please your supervisor

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

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

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

Wrapping up

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

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

Hello, Doctor…

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

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

Share this:

10 comments.

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

Thanks for the kind words.

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

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

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

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

You’re very welcome. Thanks for reading.

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

So wish me luck.

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

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

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.

Do you need to have published papers to do a PhD? The simple answer is no but it could benefit your application if you can.

PhD stress is real. Learn how to combat it with these 5 tips.

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

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

Browse PhDs Now

Find out the differences between a Literature Review and an Annotated Bibliography, whey they should be used and how to write them.

The term monotonic relationship is a statistical definition that is used to describe the link between two variables.

Dr Smethurst gained her DPhil in astrophysics from the University of Oxford in 2017. She is now an independent researcher at Oxford, runs a YouTube channel with over 100k subscribers and has published her own book.

Dr Pujada obtained her PhD in Molecular Cell Biology at Georgia State University in 2019. She is now a biomedical faculty member, mentor, and science communicator with a particular interest in promoting STEM education.

Join Thousands of Students

• Supervision
• Graduate School
• Current Students

At the core of research-intensive graduate education is the mentorship and learning that occurs between a supervisor and student.

UBC has specifically noted in its 2018-2028 Strategic Plan, a focus on improving graduate student mentorship and supervision.  This website provides helpful information and guidance about this relationship and the roles and responsibilities of each party. It gives practical advice and insights based on scholarly principles and experience , describes the roles and practices related to supervisory committees, and outlines how to access support if needed.

The words 'supervisor' and 'mentor' may reflect different roles; however, the two words are often used interchangeably. A graduate supervisory role (that of the primary overseer of a student's research to facilitate optimal outcomes) should include mentorship (positive influence on a mentee's overall professional growth. A student ideally has several mentors beyond the supervisor, either formal or informal, and may also act as a mentor to others. 

The supervisor-student relationship is not one-size-fits-all: different students working with the same supervisor require different mentoring approaches; different disciplines often have different ways of interacting; and environmental and institutional factors are important to consider. Thus, the individual attributes of both the supervisor and student can, and often should, influence what the relationship looks like. Importantly, there is an expected shift as the student progresses through their degree, with a trend toward increased independence and focus on evolving (usually professional or career based) mentoring needs.

I credit my supervisor for making my experience and development as a scholar as wonderful as it has been through their engagement, interest, empathy, support, guidance, advice, and ways of setting me up for success. - Student

Supervising graduate students, learning from and with them, and feeling pride in their accomplishments are true joys of the academic life. - Supervisor

Roles and Responsibilities

Research and graduate education are integral to the responsibilities the university has to the public and to its students, faculty, and staff. To ensure that these commitments are met, both the supervisor and student roles come with distinct responsibilities. Both supervisors and students are expected to interact respectfully and ensure all scholarship and interactions follow the ethical norms of the discipline and university.

In joining the supervisor-student relationship, a student is expected to commit the time and energy needed to learn and engage in the research and to disseminate it in the thesis (or other venues) as appropriate. They are expected to take responsibility for their learning and completing their program. Students need to be aware of, and follow, the regulations of the degree program and university, including the deadlines associated with specific academic milestones.

• Take responsibility for their progress towards their degree completion.
• Demonstrate commitment and dedicated effort in gaining the necessary background knowledge and skills to carry out the thesis.
• At all times, demonstrate research integrity and conduct research in an ethical manner in accordance with University of British Columbia policies and the policies or other requirements of any organizations funding their research.
• In conjunction with you, develop a plan and a timetable for completion of each stage of the thesis project.
• As applicable, apply to the University or granting agencies for financial awards or other necessary resources for the research.
• Meet standards and deadlines of the funding organization for a scholarship or grant.
• Adhere to negotiated schedules and meet appropriate deadlines.
• Keep you and the Faculty of Graduate Studies informed about their contact information.
• Meet and correspond with you when requested within specified time frames.
• Report fully and regularly on their progress and results.
• Maintain registration and ensure any required permits or authorizations are kept up to date until the program is completed.
• Be thoughtful and reasonably frugal in using resources.
• Behave in a respectful manner with peers and colleagues.
• Conform to the University and departmental/school requirements for their program.
• Meet at regular intervals with the supervisory committee (no less than yearly).
• Progress to candidacy defense (including completion of comprehensive exam) within 36 months of the initiation of the program.
• Keep orderly records of their research activities.
• Develop a clear understanding concerning ownership of intellectual property , inventions and scholarly integrity
• Take any required training programs that are discussed and agreed.
• Work at least regular workday hours on their research project after course-work has been completed.
• Discuss, with you, the policy on use of computers and equipment.
• Complete thesis and course work within timelines specified by the Faculty of Graduate Studies and suitable for their discipline.
• Finish their work and clear up their work space when program requirements have been completed.
• Return any borrowed materials on project completion or when requested.
• Explain to you their comfort with modes of communication (e.g. formal or informal, use of questioning) and independent activities.
• Make it clear to you when they do not understand what is expected of them.
• Describe their comfort with approaches to your academic relationship, e.g. professional versus personal.
• Contribute to a safe workplace where each individual shows tolerance and respect for the rights of others.
• Respond respectfully to advice and criticisms (indicating acceptance or rationale for rejection) received from you and members of the supervisory committee.
• Inform you in a timely manner about any of their presentations to facilitate attendance.
• Discuss, with you, their career plan and hopes for professional growth and development.

Download the Graduate Student / Supervisor Expectations document

A supervisor is expected to be available and knowledgeable to guide and help their graduate students at every stage – from advising on course selection and formulation of their research projects and methodologies, to thesis-writing, presentation and possible dissemination of their research. Supervisors must also ensure that the student’s work meets the standards of the University and the academic discipline. Good supervisors mentor the whole person in consideration of their broader intellectual development and post-graduation aspirations. 

Research and academic guidance, support, and assessment

• Have sufficient familiarity with the student’s field of research and research methodology to provide an appropriate degree of guidance
• Assist with identification of a research topic that is suitable for the student and appropriate in scope for the degree; continue to assist with refining and/or modifying the topic as needed
• Assist the student in planning the program of research, setting time frames, and adhering as much as possible to the schedule
• Get to know the student’s background and goals to be able to mentor them according to their needs, interests and circumstances
• Provide sufficient freedom of exploration to ensure the development of the student’s independence as appropriate to the degree
• Provide or ensure access to required research facilities, stipend and research funding, collaborators, research materials and data needed for the student’s research
• Facilitate the student’s development of the necessary knowledge and skills for their area of research and its communication, including sharing and encouraging relevant training opportunities
• Integrate student into any existing research groups with clear communications around shared research, authorship and intellectual property issues
• Discuss, model, and ensure knowledge and commitment to the responsible conduct of research, and academic integrity
• Provide consistent support, encouragement, and constructive feedback to the student as they progress in their research; keep track of progress and address concerns in a timely, respectful, and fair manner.
• Ensure a supervisory committee is established, with appropriate input from the student, and that it meets on a regular basis (at the very least once a year) to review the student’s progress, advise on coursework as appropriate, provide guidance for planned research, and to formally document the progress and plan
• Support the student in preparation for their comprehensive exam and admission to candidacy (doctoral students), and their thesis/dissertation writing and defence.
• Encourage students to finish up when it is not in their best interest to extend their programs.
• Be aware of program requirements and deadlines and assist the student as needed in ensuring they are met.
• Support and encourage students in their engagement with activities and professional opportunities that enhance their overall development and career goals; these include formal and informal learning opportunities and occasions to present their research results

Supervisor/student relationship, conditions

• Observe at all times the principles outlined in UBC’s Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff, and acknowledge the inherent power differential between student and supervisor that may impede a student’s communication of any concerns about the relationship.
• Come to an agreement on reasonable expectations regarding work hours and vacation time in accordance with UBC policies on student classification and graduate student vacation;
• Ensure at the outset that mutual expectations and conditions of the research environment are discussed, negotiated as appropriate, understood, and written down (as per Policy SC6). These may be modified over time. A template is available for this purpose [link].
• Refrain from requiring or expecting the student to perform tasks or activities that are unrelated to the student’s research progress or to the normal collegial activities that support a research group
• Ensure an understanding of and sensitivity to students’ cultural identities and scholarly strengths and interests.
• Be reasonably accessible to the student for consultation and discussion of their progress; the frequency of meetings may vary by area of research and the stage of students’ experience and independence.
• Respond thoroughly and in a timely fashion to students’ work submitted for feedback or approval (e.g., manuscripts, theses, presentation materials)
• Ensure that an environment exists for fruitful and respectful discussion of ideas and research plans and results in individual meetings as well as group settings.
• Strive to create a a the research environment is free from inequities, discrimination and harassment.
• Be attentive to students’ wellbeing and any barriers or challenges related to equity and inclusion, and advocate for students when necessary; become familiar with campus wellbeing resources and guidelines for accommodations as needed.
• Alert the graduate program director or other appropriate individuals if there are concerns about students’ progress, health, wellbeing or other issues.
• Make alternative arrangements to ensure continuity of supervision if/when there will be disruptions for extended periods.

The graduate program advisor is (preferably) a tenured Associate Professor or Full Professor. In addition to her or his own teaching and research responsibilities, the program graduate advisor agrees to take on the following responsibilities for a certain tenure of time.

The graduate advisor’s duties may vary, but they typically include the following:

Acts as liaison with the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

Ensures that graduate students working on research theses are matched with appropriate supervisors and supervisory committees

Compiles and coordinates information concerning deadlines, procedures, etc. and communicates these regularly to graduate students and faculty members. Ensures that faculty supervising, or teaching graduate students are aware of, and adhere to, applicable policies and procedures

Every research master's or doctoral student must have a supervisory committee, consisting of the supervisor and at least two other individuals (for doctoral students) or at least one other (for master’s students). The purpose of the supervisory committee is to provide support to both student and supervisor by broadening and deepening the range of expertise and perspective in the research area. Some programs assign a faculty member from outside the committee as chair; otherwise, the supervisor chairs the committee. 

Committee members are normally faculty members. The committee's role is to provide support by broadening and deepening the range of expertise and experience available to you and your supervisor. The committee offers advice about and assessment of your work.

A doctoral student's supervisory committee is responsible for guiding the student in selecting any required courses, planning the research, and preparing the thesis.

Students in a master's program with a thesis will have a supervisory committee that advises them on coursework, research, and thesis preparation.

Graduate students who establish their supervisory committees early in their programs and who meet with their committees regularly, tend to complete their degree programs successfully, and more quickly, than students who wait to establish their committees.

Doctoral students: If there are changes to the composition or distribution of roles on a doctoral student's supervisory committee after candidacy, Graduate and Postdoctoral studies must be notified so that the committee can be re-confirmed. Failure to do this may result in delays at the time of the doctoral defence if there are problems with the non-confirmed committee.

The roles of the committee

The committee guides the student in selecting coursework, planning the research, and writing the thesis/dissertation, and often has helpful advice and support for other aspects of the graduate journey. Members provide constructive feedback and assessment, and at least some of the committee will be among those who determine the acceptability of the final thesis or dissertation (both before and at the examination). Committee members should be available for consultation and advice at times other than at formal meetings, and they can be valuable mentors who understand the research and broader situation. For further information on the structure of and other policies related to the supervisory committee.

Assembling the committee

In general, the student and supervisor should establish the supervisory committee as soon as possible after agreement on a thesis or dissertation topic, with membership choices based largely on the research interests and expertise of the individuals and their availability and willingness to serve. Check UBC Policies and Procedures to ensure that potential members, and the composition of the committee as a whole, meet all UBC requirements.  

Note that committee members may come from outside UBC or any university. These could include professionals or others with relevant expertise and experience (e.g. Indigenous community members).  

The committee is required to meet at least once a year to review progress (academic, research, professional) and to make recommendations as needed. Some programs have formal structures for their meetings, where the student submits a written summary of their research and academic progress before the meeting and presents their work orally at the meeting. This is excellent practice for developing oral presentation skills and allows the committee to more fully understand the progress. Most programs will also have a standard form to be filled out after the meeting that documents progress and that may summarize the committee's recommendations.  

Supervision - for students

Every UBC student in a thesis-based graduate degree must have a supervisor.

If you are a prospective student or an admitted student who does not yet have a supervisor, please visit Finding a Supervisor  for guidance on identifying a faculty member who may be an appropriate fit for you.  

Finalizing a supervisor arrangement is not just about whether a faculty member decides to take you on as a student.  Rather, you should also be evaluating the supervisor, and your academic and professional fit with them.  In addition to speaking with them directly, you can also reach out to current or former students to hear more about their personal experience (many programs have lists of current and former graduate students, and many supervisors have websites that list the same). 

As for any long-term working relationship, it is critically important to invest time and energy as soon as possible to establish mutual expectations and common understanding between you and your supervisor.  

The standard expectations UBC has of supervisors and graduate students as noted above are generally non-negotiable. However, there are additional conditions of the working relationship to consider, some of which may be negotiable on either side. For example: 

• How does your supervisor anticipate they’ll be guiding, directing and overseeing the research project and your progress? 
• How often will you meet with your supervisor, and in what form normally (online or in person)? 
• What are your supervisor’s expectations for the amount of time spent in research? 
• What is the best way to communicate (e.g., email, chat)? 
• How is funding expected to work over the course throughout the program, and what roles do you each have in securing that funding?  
• Will there be support for travelling to conferences? 
• What is expected with regard to research publications and presentations?  
• Will you be expected to take on additional roles (e.g., research assistant or teaching assistant)? 
• How much time is available for non-academic pursuits, especially professional development? 

Other, more complex points of communication might include: 

• Especially if there are cultural differences, mutual communication and working styles, and how both of you can be clear and respectful in your discourse. 
• If you have a disability or on-going medical condition that may impact your learning or progress, it is important to connect as early as possible in your program with the Centre for Accessibility to discuss accommodations and receive access to academic supports. Where appropriate, the graduate specialists will provide you a letter of accommodation to share with your supervisor, and offer guidance on how to discuss your needs in your unique setting.   
• Early on is also an ideal time to talk about your particular interests or concerns or life circumstances, as well as any long-term career or related aspirations. Ask whether and how these aspirations may be supported either through your research project and/or other learning opportunities.  

So often expectations are not openly discussed, which can lead to misunderstandings and conflict later on. It is UBC's policy ( Scholarly Integrity , section 2.1.3) to have research environment conditions outlined in writing. Your program may have a template for documenting these, and there is also a common UBC-wide template available. It is a good idea to revisit these expectations periodically (at least annually) to ensure the two of you continue to be on the same page, and can revise them as necessary.

It is important to have agreed on the basics of what is expected of you and your supervisor, including how and how often you will interact, acknowledging of course that life rarely follows our specific expectations or ideal course. Remember that you are responsible for your own learning and research. You need to be proactive in asking for advice, support or clarification when needed, keeping your supervisor informed about your progress and any situations or events that may impact your work. 

Here are some tips on developing and maintaining a productive relationship, keeping on track with your research and program, and avoiding problems, or addressing them if they arise. 

Communication

Among the key origins of many difficulties in the relationship or in research progress are problems in communication. Complications in communication may be especially true when you and your supervisor are from different cultures or are more comfortable in different languages. What is intended by one person may not be received in the same way by the other. There are also often unspoken assumptions on the part of either you or your supervisor which the other is not aware of. 

It is important for both you and your supervisor to have open and clear communication. If you are about something that was said or think something may have been incorrectly assumed, ask your supervisor to clarify; likewise, be explicit with the thoughts and questions that are important for your supervisor to understand. To help ensure the two of you understand the conversation the same way, it is often helpful to tell your supervisor what you understood they said so that it can be corrected if needed. Direct conversations like these can be challenging depending on your and your supervisor's communication style, your respective cultural and social norms, the stage in your program, the subject matter, the power differential, etc. However, ensuring there is a shared understanding and mutual expectations between student and supervisor is critical to the success of the relationship, and of the research, and finding a way to communicate in a way that works for both parties should be a priority.

Factors such as the specifics of the project, where the student is in their program, and other individual student or supervisor preferences are important to consider when determining an optimal meeting schedule. It may be beneficial to meet frequently (e.g., weekly) at certain stages of the program, while sporadic meetings may be more appropriate in other circumstances. It is UBC policy for student progress to be reviewed at least once a year.  

When coming to a meeting, ensure both parties understand its purpose. Come prepared with the relevant information and/or plans, and be able to summarize your progress, questions, or concerns. It is often good to write down (even just for yourself) what you would like to discuss. It is best practice to write and share a summary of the conversation with the supervisor after the meeting (e.g. an email summarizing your understanding of what was discussed and the plan for next steps). 

Most people find giving and receiving (especially negative) feedback difficult. However, feedback is crucially important for learning, research, and a productive working relationship. Feedback should be constructive and given respectfully and with good intentions and be received with an open mind. It is good practice to specifically ask for feedback periodically or when needed, whether from your supervisor, your supervisory committee, or your colleagues. They all have different perspectives and experiences which can enrich your growth. And do not forget to provide feedback as needed to your supervisor and others, noting especially that sincere, positive feedback can be beneficial to everyone. 

Group dynamics

Many areas of research are conducted in group settings – whether the researchers are collaborating or working independently – and the importance of collegial interactions in such groups cannot be overstated. Researchers are generally expected to help one another as needed, share knowledge and ideas, and contribute to the functioning of the group. This is to everyone’s benefit, as such interactions nurture learning, the research itself, and the wellbeing of the researcher(s). The time dedicated to helping one another or the group can be a matter of judgment, and the decision involves balancing the benefits and drawbacks (e.g., possibly delaying completion time) of that time spent. 

It is realistic to expect that challenges may come up over time in your relationship with your supervisor or colleagues. In general, the best way to address or resolve a problem is to identify it early, and to start by working directly and constructively with the person or people involved. There is an inherent power differential between you and your supervisor, as your supervisor has significant (but not complete) authority over your status in your program and research and may have significant influence on your future career. Although this power dynamic should not negatively affect student learning and progress, it can be difficult to openly disagree or share negative feedback with your supervisor. There are several units or individuals on campus who can advise you or help you navigate challenging situations if they occur. 

Here are some general pointers that may help you to navigate challenges with your supervisor:

• Acknowledge your shared goals and values and demonstrate that you understand your supervisor’s constraints
• Share your facts, including how you feel or felt about the issue; when it is a communication issue, it might be helpful to indicate what 'you heard' your supervisor say
• Tell your story, and the context behind your concern
• Ask for their view and listen carefully
• Suggest or discuss together a potential solution or trial solution
• The other members of your supervisory committee
• Your Graduate Advisor/Chair of the graduate program
• Your fellow students
• Other faculty members
• Graduate Student Society (GSS)
• Ombuds Office
• Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (G+PS)
• If the problem is such that you are considering a change of supervisor, consult the Conflict Resolution section. 
• Perhaps most importantly, ensure as much as possible that the nature of the relationship is clarified at the beginning (see Getting Off to a Good Start), and that the best ways of communicating are discussed

Here are a few specific challenges that sometimes arise:

Difficulties in meeting or responding

At times, your supervisor may be too busy with other requirements of their academic position to meet when or as often as you would like or be slow in responding to correspondence. This can be frustrating, especially when you need their help or advice on the next step in your research. Here are a few points to consider: 

• As always, it is best to talk about these issues at the outset. How often should you meet? Are there times that they will be away or will be expected to be less responsive? What can I generally expect for turnaround times for emails or submitted material?  
• Faculty are incredibly busy, with many other responsibilities in addition to supervising graduate students. Often, a lack of or delay in response may not reflect any intent to ignore you, but rather competing priorities - reach out with an open mind, follow up as necessary and have realistic expectations for response.  
• When communicating by email, make sure you are as clear and concise as possible, and that you provide sufficient information for a well-informed response. It is also extremely helpful to state the main point(s) or question(s) of the email at the beginning with further details next, and for complex information, an attachment might be best. All this helps your supervisor to make a quick estimate of how urgent the subject is, how much time they will take to answer it, and whether or not they need further information to be able to respond appropriately. 
• A gentle reminder after a reasonable period of time is usually fine. A general rule of thumb is 1-2 weeks, depending on the nature of the request and the time of year. 

If you continue to have trouble connecting with your supervisor, contact your Graduate Advisor for advice or assistance.

Breaching boundaries

The relationship between a graduate student and their supervisor can be complex. Healthy boundaries with regard to issues such as expectations, availability, and the friendly nature of the relationship can be challenging to define or address when they are perceived to be breached. 

As a student, you have a right to expect respectful and professional interactions with your supervisor, and a duty to demonstrate those yourself. Breaches in those boundaries might include being asked to perform work that’s not related to either your research or to the standard mutual support that occurs within a research group, or to be available to a degree you feel is unreasonable. Of course, some offers may be welcome (e.g., helping out on a grant application, giving a lecture), and you have the choice of agreeing to the request or not. If you feel that it is justified, yet too difficult to say no to these requests, speak with your Graduate Advisor or an experienced colleague for advice.  

There may be situations when you feel uncomfortable in the relationship with your supervisor. While it is usually best to communicate your concerns directly, you may not feel that you have the capacity or are able to have that conversation directly. As always, your Graduate Advisor or G+PS are available to support you in the situation if needed. Note that any sexual or intimate relationship between faculty and students at UBC is strictly prohibited ( Policy SC17 ). In general, other types of relationships that give rise to perceived or actual conflicts of interest (i.e., in which the supervisor has personal or other interests that may influence how they assess or guide you, either positively or negatively) need to be declared to the Department Head, and handled as appropriate.  

Supervisor is away

There may be times in your program when your supervisor is away from the University for extended periods, which is often the case when faculty are on a study (sabbatical) or other leave. For leaves extending beyond two months, it is University policy that an arrangement be made for continuity of supervision. This may be simply a mutually agreed-upon mode of communication (e.g. regular video meetings), but it is also common for an interim co-supervisor to be appointed, especially if your supervisor is unable to offer sufficient interaction. 

If your supervisor leaves the university for another position, it may be possible to continue under their supervision, but a UBC co-supervisor must be appointed. These arrangements must be approved by the program and the Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. If it is not feasible to continue with your original supervisor, you will (with your program’s help) need to identify a new supervisor. 

If your supervisor retires, they are eligible to continue to act as your supervisor if the program agrees to it. 

Ending the relationship

Though it is rare, there are a variety of circumstances and events that might lead you and/or your supervisor to consider ending your supervisory relationship. Given the potential for substantial ramifications for both parties, it is important to carefully consider the decision before taking action.  

A graduate student is expected to have consistent supervision throughout their degree and are not permitted to be without a supervisor for an indefinite or prolonged period. Students without a supervisor will be required to withdraw from the program if they are not able to find an alternative supervisory arrangement within a short period of time, normally a maximum of six weeks. If students are proactive and resourceful during this period and are still unable to find someone new to supervise, we have found it to be highly unlikely that additional time will be of benefit. A period of inactivity and lack of progress lasting longer than six weeks is sufficient grounds for a program to recommend withdrawal for inadequate academic progress. Finally, it is unfair to allow a student to remain registered, pay tuition, use University resources, and continue losing time on a degree which, as above, is unlikely to be completed if a supervisor is not identified in the initial six-week window. Short extensions may be possible if concrete progress is being made on the search within the allowed period. 

Before deciding on ending the supervisory relationship

Identify for yourself (list out) the reasons why you are considering ending the relationship. Then:  

• A co-supervisor should always play a meaningful academic role, but can also bring a new interpersonal dynamic and perspective to the supervisory relationship. If applicable, familiarize yourself with the policy regarding co-supervision within and outside of the department. 
• Seek consultation and support.  Speak with your program's Graduate Advisor, G+PS (Associate Director, Student Academic Support), or other members of your committee. You may also wish to speak with the Ombuds Office, Equity & Inclusion, International Student Advising (if applicable), and/or the Graduate Student Society. These resources can provide a confidential space to explore options.   
• Seek clarity on potential consequences . If you do not already have a new supervisor willing to work with you, you will normally have a maximum of six weeks to arrange for one. Your program is expected generally to advise or assist you with this, but they are unable to simply appoint a new supervisor. Note that depending on the circumstances, you might have to limit your choice to those who have funding for you. If a new supervisor is not secured within the six-week period, you will have to either withdraw from your program voluntarily or be required to withdraw. Starting with a new supervisor has ramifications, including significant delays in program completion. You may also not receive the same financial support. All of the above has the potential to impact your academic, professional, personal, and financial circumstances, as well as your international student status if applicable.
• Understand your responsibility.  Ultimately it is a student's responsibility to secure a new supervisor, though the Graduate Advisor is expected to make their best effort to support the process. "Best effort" may include a meeting to discuss potential supervisors to approach, reviewing a portfolio of work to present to potential supervisors, offering introductions, and advising on applicable policies. 

If you do decide to end the relationship, you should do so in a professional manner and, if appropriate, be open to compromise in terms of timing or the future relationship. This would be particularly important if your supervisor is dependent on you to reach a critical research goal. G+PS and the other resources listed above can help you in preparing your communications with your supervisor. 

Supervision - for supervisors

As a supervisor, you are the key person in your student's graduate degree program and have considerable influence in helping them achieve their full potential academically, intellectually, and professionally. Most faculty would agree that it is also one of the most fulfilling aspects of academic work.  

It is important to recognize the responsibilities that come with this role and to ensure that these are met to the best of your abilities with each graduate student. Key foundational elements of successful graduate supervision include: 

• Mutual respect 
• Clear and frequent communication 
• Agreement on mutual expectations 
• Mentoring tailored to the needs, attributes and aspirations of each student 

See below for more detailed guidelines on the nature of excellent graduate supervision pedagogy and practical advice on developing a mutually beneficial and productive relationship with your student: 

Graduate supervision is a nuanced and complex form of pedagogy and is evolving as the nature of the university and its students are changing. The UBC Guide to the Principles of Excellent Graduate Supervision Pedagogy was created to support faculty in their roles as educators in this domain. It was written by a group of experienced mentors, drawing from scholarly literature, and was endorsed by the Graduate Council and the UBC Senate. You are encouraged to review the guide and to reflect on how these principles might relate to your own practice and situation.

Especially in your early years as a supervisor, you will likely need to be proactive in your search for graduate students. For advice and best practices around recruitment, see the comprehensive resources on recruitment in the Faculty and Staff Intranet. 

Your choice of student has long-lasting implications for you, for your research group if you have one, for the student themselves, for the program, and for all those the student interacts with and influences at UBC and in their future career. Among the questions it would be important to ask yourself are: 

• Is there an intellectual fit between the student’s research interests and your research program? 
• Will you be able to provide the necessary resources to this student? (e.g. infrastructure, equipment, access to data as appropriate, your time and expertise) 
• Will the student thrive in your research environment? 
• Will the student ask insightful research questions and conduct impactful research; do they have intellectual spark and curiosity? 
• Will the student be collegial, helpful, and collaborative? 
• Are they committed? 
• Will they contribute to the diversity of the program or research group (e.g., diversity in demographics, expertise, ways of thinking)? 
• Does the student have the experience and/or motivation necessary to be successful in the program with you as their supervisor? 

In addition to academic grades and evidence of research expertise or promise, answers to these questions will need more in-depth assessment, best gained through an interview and communication with the student and their referees. Ideally, the student is also evaluating you as a supervisor and it is a good idea for them to meet with your research group or past students, if applicable and feasible.

The quality of the student-supervisor relationship is crucial to effective learning, to success, and to the wellbeing of both parties and beyond. It is extremely important to get started on the right foot, and to ensure both you and your student share and agree on the expectations of the working relationship. This can prevent problems and misunderstandings down the road, and lead to a more open and productive relationship. 

Mutual expectations

Having a conversation at the start of the supervisory relationship is essential, and written confirmation of the understanding is best (or required in some cases). Important issues to discuss include applicable funding, meeting frequency and mode, practices around authorship and intellectual property, preferred modes of communication, and ways of interacting. Clarifying expectations and surfacing assumptions are important because of the diversity of experiences, backgrounds and personal circumstances that may or may not be shared between you and the student. . There should also be mutual understanding of the amount of time the student will spend on their research, what additional requests or opportunities may be asked or available to the student, and how long the program is likely to take.  

So often these expectations are not openly discussed, which can lead to misunderstandings and conflict. It is UBC's policy ( Scholarly Integrity , section 2.1.3) to have research environment conditions outlined in writing. Your program may have a template for documenting these, and there is also a common UBC-wide template. It is a good idea to revisit these expectations periodically (at least annually) to ensure the two of you continue to be on the same page, and to revise them as necessary. 

Graduate Student / Supervisor Expectations document

Although not all points in the document may apply to your situation, and additional elements may be important, they reflect the responsibilities UBC has articulated for both the supervisor and student. G+PS views these generally as hallmarks of a positive, productive, and respectful relationship between a student and their supervisor. This document may be modified according to circumstances. We encourage signing by both parties to indicate a high level of mutual commitment to the principles laid out. The template letter we have provided may be used by the supervisor to expand on the expectations/conditions associated with supervision or to place the expectations document in context. It is highly recommended to revisit this document occasionally (e.g., annual review meeting), as student needs and circumstances evolve. 

Getting to know one other

It is important for you to get to know your students - their learning preferences, interests, background, and career or other aspirations - as those should ideally influence your mentorship approach with them (see Supervision Excellence Principle 1 ). Likewise, it is helpful for your student to know more about you, including your values, experience, challenges and particular excitement about your work. 

Potential ways to support your student’s interests and their career exploration and aspirations might include: 

• Discuss career issues with them as they evolve, and work with them to identify potential professional development opportunities and experiences. Opportunities for students to gain additional competencies are available through Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, the Centre for Teaching and Learning, and other units at UBC and external to UBC.  
• Encourage them to use an Individual Development Plan to help with their goal-setting and achievement. 
• Consider at least a partial alignment of their research subject, approach, and research outputs (including their thesis format) with their interests. See Emerging Dissertation Approaches and Designs for the scope of possible thesis formats and content. 
• Include your students as appropriate in your professional life and introduce them to your broader intellectual community. 

Every relationship between a student and their supervisor is different, and each one changes over time and as circumstances evolve. There are a number of principles and good practices, however, that are universally relevant, or that are helpful to be aware of in different situations or times. The following expands on the list of supervisor responsibilities listed above and offers guidance and tips on promoting a positive and effective relationship with your student over time and in varying circumstances. 

Mentorship, not employment

Although the language of employment ('boss', 'hire', etc.) is often used in describing the student-supervisor relationship, it is NOT an employer-employee relationship, regardless of the funding arrangement for the student. A Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) stipend is considered a scholarship and its payment does not impart any employment-related duties, expectations, or requirements on the student. If a student is receiving a Graduate Academic Assistant (GAA) salary (which is taxable, unlike the GRA stipend), that must be for work that is not intended to contribute to the student's thesis, and it represents a distinct employment relationship separate from the student-supervisor relationship. 

While there may be instances where these funding mechanisms - appropriately used - can be beneficial to the student, it is imperative to remember that the primary objective during their time in graduate school is education, not employment. There is a substantial difference between a mentoring/advising relationship and an employment relationship in terms of the mutual expectations, parameters of authority, and fundamental purpose and nature of the interactions. For example, an employer may justifiably ask an employee to perform work unrelated to their primary focus, or to insist on strict work hours and breaks, or even prohibit participation in outside activities during those work hours, etc. Although there is some overlap with these in the expectations in the mentoring relationship, the degree of justifiable restrictions, and the inherent authority and tenor of the interaction are entirely different. Check the Boundaries section below for more guidelines. 

Accessibility and meetings

Supervisors are expected to be accessible to their student for discussion and feedback on their research and academic progress. The frequency of meetings or other communication will vary depending on the discipline, your student’s stage in the program and the progress of the research among other factors. It may be beneficial to at least begin with a regular schedule of meetings, with the frequency changing according to the situation. This should be discussed with the student at the outset, including any other accommodations, accessibility or health related needs; responsibilities, such as childcare or family commitments; or other factors such as commutes, etc.  preferences that will support the student to be successful.  

Students commonly cite frustration with long times to receive feedback on written work or to reply to emails (or not receiving a response at all). It is certainly acknowledged that faculty can be very busy and may struggle to ensure prompt responses. However, your student does have a legitimate expectation of timely responses, as slow response times can negatively impact their research and completion times. It is best practice to at least acknowledge your student’s emails if there is an expected delay, indicating when your response is anticipated. These issues and normal response times should also be discussed at the outset and revisited as needed.  

If you are absent for an extended period (e.g., are on leave) you must ensure that arrangements are made with your student(s) to provide them with continued supervision. These may include regular virtual check-ins or the assignment of a co-supervisor during your absence. 

Communication and cross-cultural engagement

Clear, thoughtful, and respectful communication with your student is critical to effective supervision. Active and empathic listening is equally important – listening to what they understand, their questions, ideas, and concerns. 

The power differential in the relationship may make it difficult for your student to discuss disagreements or concerns, and it is important to promote an open and respectful environment that encourages them to discuss these without fear of reprisal or shame. 

Among the key origins of difficulties in the student-supervisor relationship or in research progress are problems in communication. Complications in communication can arise in the best of relationships but especially when you and your student do not share common lived experiences (e.g. personal, cultural, educational) or are more comfortable in different languages. For example: 

• There may be a misunderstanding or unintended interpretation of what you or the student has said. 
• There are often unspoken assumptions on the part of either you or your student which the other is not aware of. For example, the student may not be aware of normal expectations or processes, while you may assume that they “should know how things work.” 
• Direct criticism is uncommon in some cultures, especially in public, and may be interpreted by the other party as insulting or belittling. Conversely, indirect criticism may not be fully understood. 

Tracking Progress

Keeping track of your student’s progress is one of your core responsibilities. Regular assessment is an opportunity to provide encouragement and positive feedback and helps to identify and address potential problems or misunderstandings, whether in the research project itself, in the student’s scholarly development, or in personal, environmental or program issues that are hindering effective advancement. A fair and supportive approach to monitoring and facilitating progress is essential. 

If and when any problems in your student’s progress are not resolved after several attempts and any legitimate contributing factors have been considered and addressed, it is important to be more deliberate in documenting the issues and timelines if that has not been done. Specific advice on how to do this fairly and compassionately is outlined below (Research progress concerns), as are possible consequences for the student. 

While regular assessment is usually an informal process, it is essential that it is done formally at least once a year and is reviewed by the graduate program (see UBC Policy on Academic Progress ).  

Funding issues

Most students rely on some form of funding throughout their degree, yet the sources and amounts can change over time which can sometimes cause some distress and confusion. For any students on GRA stipends, it is important to be very clear about the parameters of these (e.g., How long will they be paid? Will the stipend change in value? Will they be expected to seek other sources? If so, will the GRA stipend be affected if the student is successful in securing other funding?) A student may feel uncomfortable discussing funding, and clarity and openness on your part to the subject is important. 

Boundaries, conflicts of interest

The relationship between a graduate student and their supervisor can be complex. Having healthy, professional boundaries concerning issues such as work expectations and availability can be challenging to build and for a student to identify or to address when they experience a breach of such boundaries. 

Students have a right to expect respectful and professional interactions with their supervisor, and a duty to demonstrate those attributes themselves. Breaches in those boundaries might include supervisors: 

• asking a student to perform work (paid or unpaid) that's unrelated to either their research or to the standard mutual support that occurs within a research group,  
• asking a student to be available to a degree that could be seen as unreasonable (e.g., weekends and evenings) 
• asking a student to do tasks for the supervisor of a personal nature 
• exerting inappropriate control (e.g., improperly restricting their non-research activities or insisting that they complete research above and beyond what is needed for their thesis) 
• threatening a student with a mediocre reference letter, reduced funding, or withholding of academic approval if they refuse to carry out the supervisor's wishes 
• interacting with a student in an inappropriate way (e.g., becoming too intrusive in their personal lives, or entering into a sexual or intimate relationship - note that such relationships are prohibited at UBC - Policy SC17 ) 

Of course, some offers of tasks or activities may be welcome (e.g., helping out on a grant application, giving a lecture), and but it is the supervisor’s responsibility to ensure that students feel free to agree to them or not. Given the power differential, however, it can be very difficult for them to say no to these requests, and it is incumbent on the supervisor to be sensitive to that dynamic. 

Sometimes perceived or actual conflicts of interest may arise, and these must be managed. Apart from the inherent potential conflicts of interest (e.g., the supervisor’s career interests vs. the student’s learning needs), examples include a supervisor’s financial interest in the research being performed by the student, the supervisor and the student having a familial or other close relationship, or any personal or other interests that may influence how the supervisor assesses or guides the student. The student may also have their own conflict(s) of interest. If and when these arise, it is critical that they be disclosed to the appropriate people (e.g., the student, the department head, and the graduate advisor and/or the supervisory committee), and in the RISe COI declaration. The department head or equivalent manager may require a management plan. It should be remembered that a conflict of interest can exist whether it be actual or perceived. 

Research progress concerns

Helping your students maintain good progress through to the successful completion of their program is one of your key roles. Students can run into problems in their research or coursework, or simply lose momentum at any stage of their program for a variety of often interrelated reasons. Frequent and open two-way communication, clearly defined expectations of progress, and ongoing assessment (with the help of the supervisory committee as needed) will help you identify when a student is experiencing difficulty.  

For a student experiencing challenges for primarily personal reasons (e.g., life circumstances, mental or physical health, etc.), check advice and guidelines below for how you can help or who to contact. It is not uncommon for a student to experience both academic and personal challenges, and for these and any other complex situations it is advisable to contact your graduate advisor for assistance. 

When a student is unable to make progress for primarily academic-related reasons after all reasonable support has been offered, it is in everyone’s best interest to address the problem directly and expeditiously. It is essential that principles of fair and supportive performance management are followed. These include: 

• The identification of specific, measurable tasks with individual deadlines , that are clear and preferably mutually agreed upon. They should be written out, especially if the academic status of your student is at stake. If your student believes the tasks and/or timelines are unreasonable, they can contact their supervisory committee members or graduate advisor for advice. 
• Provide reasonable guidance to support the completion of tasks. 
• As the situation calls, communication in writing of the consequences for not meeting the tasks. In cases of clearly unacceptable progress, these might include remedial work (e.g., coursework), a change in the research project, transfer to a different supervisor or program (e.g. to a master’s from a doctoral), or withdrawal from the program (following G+PS policies and procedures ).  

If a student is considering withdrawal or transfer, ensure that you coordinate with the program's graduate advisor and G+PS personnel to ensure due process is followed.

Although rare, sometimes the student-supervisor relationship becomes untenable for any number of reasons, and sometimes student’s research interests change to a degree that they would be better supervised by another faculty member (or be co-supervised). Sometimes, conflicts arise and the supervisory relationship becomes unhealthy and unsustainable.  Given the potential for substantial ramifications for both parties, it is critical to carefully consider the decision before taking action. Importantly, students are expected to have consistent supervision throughout their degree and are not permitted to be without a supervisor for an indefinite or prolonged period. They will normally be given six weeks to secure a new supervisor, and if unsuccessful, will have to leave the program.  

If you are considering this step, you should consult with your graduate advisor before taking any action. In cases of concerns about inadequate student progress, the supervisor and supervisory committee must address this in a fair and well-documented way before deciding to end the relationship. 

Faculty must be mindful of the fact that when supervisory relationships end, supervisors are able to move forward with greater security than a student, who is in a more vulnerable position. As noted above, withdrawal of supervision often leads to withdrawal from the program as students cannot continue with their program without a supervisor. To better understand the short- and long-term consequences of the decision, consider the following that may result from withdrawal of supervision: 

• negative impact on student's finances; 
• drastic changes to academic and/or professional trajectories if a student is withdrawn from a program; 
• unexpected delays or gaps in education and professional experience if a student has to change supervisors or projects, or transfer programs; 
• negative impact on mental health; 
• for an international student, having to leave Canada and potentially abandon plans to remain in Canada post-graduation; and 
• for students with families, needing to re-locate and secure new family-friendly housing, childcare, and schooling. 

Before ending the supervisory relationship: 

• Document and communicate your concerns . As above, concerns about inadequate student progress must be documented and communicated to the student, along with a fair opportunity to respond to those concerns and address them and/or improve, before recommending withdrawal from the program. This may include, for example, email evidence that (1) specific, measurable tasks with individual deadlines were agreed to by all parties, (2) reasonable guidance was offered to support completion of those tasks, and (3) a formal, scheduled check-in took place at the end of the planned assessment period to provide feedback on the work completed. In general, it is important to document any concerns about student performance and progression, any verbal or written conversations with the student to address these concerns, any recommendations for improvement, and any consequences for failure to mitigate these concerns. 
• Consider an alternative or modified approach . Given the significance of the decision to step down, alternative arrangements should be considered. Could the project be modified? Could the relationship be improved through direct communication or the support of a third party? Would a co-supervisor or modified supervisory committee improve the situation? 
• Seek consultation and support . Speak with the program’s Graduate Advisor, G+PS, or other members of a student’s committee. 
• If a student is permitted to continue with a new supervisor, a continuity plan should be established including consideration of whether they can continue with their existing project, incorporate their work thus far in their thesis, or publish the work, etc. Potential authorship and/or intellectual property issues need to be clarified. 
• Consider funding implications . If a student is still receiving funding when a supervisor steps down, and particularly if a student is still under the Minimum Funding Policy , the program must ensure funding is continued for the maximum six-week search period or until a new supervisor is secured (whichever comes first). If the former supervisor is unwilling or unable to fund the six-week search period, the responsibility sits with the program. Depending on the circumstances of the termination, it is ultimately the responsibility of the program to ensure the minimum funding level is maintained for the student throughout the required funding period of their program. 
• Set a deadline . A student is normally provided with six weeks to secure a new supervisor. During the six-week period, the student is encouraged to reach out to potential supervisors to discuss their research interests and work so far, communicate their timeline to commence work with the new supervisor and liaise with their Graduate Advisor regarding decisions and outcomes. The program must make their best efforts to support a student in this search. 

If after these steps, you still decide to end the supervisory relationship, check in with your Grad Advisor as they might be able to provide you with helpful information on the manner and timing of your communications with the student.  An invite to a face-to-face meeting, notifying the student that you would like to discuss the decision you have reached, giving them sufficient notice of the meeting and inviting them to bring along a support person is good practice. You should be prepared to explain to the student the factors you considered and weighed to come to your decision and offer contacts and resources to help them with the transition. Helping the student understand why the relationship is ending can support the student to move forward.

Problems & support

Despite our best efforts, issues and conflict can arise. It’s realistic to expect that challenges will come up in the course of your working relationship. The best way to handle a problem between you and your supervisor is to identify it while it’s small and manageable and communicate openly and collaboratively on finding a solution.

For particularly sensitive or complex challenges however, you may feel the need for some additional support to help you navigate the situation. The Faculty of Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies offers confidential services to support graduate students in these circumstances.

Here are just some examples of the situations that can arise.

Changing circumstances

A supervisor may leave, retire or go on sabbatical for an extended period of time. Or a student may change their area of research or change fields entirely.

Incompatibility

Sometimes two individuals simply don’t get along or cannot work together due to differing working styles, even after honest efforts to do so.

Changing supervisors

Graduate students should contact discuss changing supervisors with the Graduate Advisor for their program, unit or Faculty. For particularly complex challenges, reach out to G+PS for support in constructively ending the relationship.

Support resources Check out some frequently asked questions regarding supervisors, committees, and resources you might need

Life happens while in grad school.  You may experience challenges with relationships, marriage, parenting or other family issues. Health problems or other unexpected situations can add to the stress of academic work. If you are needing support, from counselling to taking a leave of absence, there are resources to support you.

• UBC Ombuds Office is an impartial and confidential resource for students to obtain assistance when they feel they have been treated unfairly in the university setting.
• The Equity & Inclusion Office provides a range of services to support equity, diversity and inclusion; offers consultation services to help members of UBC community navigate and resolve conflicts; and assists with human-rights related discrimination concerns.
• Graduate Student Society Peer Support Specialists provide confidential assistance to individual fellow graduate students experiencing difficulties.
• Faculty of Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies (G+PS) Associate Director of Student Academic Support can meet with you to confidentially to discuss your concerns, how UBC policies may apply and resources that may be beneficial, and steps to work towards a resolution.

Frequently asked questions

Supervisors should be available for consultation and discussion of your academic progress and research. The frequency of meetings will vary according to the discipline, stage of work, nature of the project, independence of the student, full- or part-time status, etc. For many, weekly meetings are essential; for others, monthly meetings are satisfactory. In no case should interaction be less frequent than once per term.

Yes, Supervisors can provide constructive suggestions for improvement and give input on continuation of work. Supervisors should respond in a timely manner, with the turnaround time for comments being less than 3 weeks maximum.

The procedure for changing supervisors is specific to individual programs at UBC; therefore Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies has no formal role in the process. Programs are primarily responsible for ensuring that each graduate student has a supervisor. However, there may be times when Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies is consulted and can play a supporting role.

If the supervisor leaves the university due to retirement, resignation, sabbatical or extended leave, the program or unit has a responsibility to make their best effort to appoint a replacement. The program/unit will then inform Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies of the change.

If you are considering changing supervisors:

• Discuss this with the Graduate Advisor for your program, unit or Faculty. 
• Attempt to resolve the issue through discussion with the Graduate Advisor and the original supervisor. 
• Ensure that both "old" and "new" supervisors are part of the decision and consult with the full committee when appropriate. 
• Ensure that your program approves the change. As appropriate, your program will then notify Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. 

For complete information, see  Policies and Procedures / Supervision

Any faculty member who is a member of the UBC Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies is eligible to serve as a graduate student supervisor.

The UBC Calendar has the full Senate policy on  membership in the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies .

Supervision of a student can be shared by two co-supervisors. At least one co-supervisor must meet the criteria (a member of the UBC Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies). Other appropriately qualified individuals may be approved to serve as co-supervisors.

In all cases where the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies must approve a supervisory role for a non-member, the request must be made when the committee is formed.

Wellness resources

UBC Wellness Centre believes that a healthy mind, body, and spirit are foundations for students to achieve their personal and academic goals. Located in the UBC Life Building, the Wellness Centre is a friendly, peer-hosted space that offers many wellbeing programs for graduate students.

• Why Grad School at UBC?
• Graduate Degree Programs
• Application & Admission
• Info Sessions
• Research Supervisors
• Research Projects
• Indigenous Students
• International Students
• Tuition, Fees & Cost of Living
• Newly Admitted
• Student Status & Classification
• Student Responsibilities
• Managing your Program
• Health, Wellbeing and Safety
• Professional Development
• Dissertation & Thesis Preparation
• Final Doctoral Exam
• Final Dissertation & Thesis Submission
• Life in Vancouver
• Vancouver Campus
• Graduate Student Spaces
• Graduate Life Centre
• Life as a Grad Student
• Graduate Student Ambassadors
• Meet our Students
• Award Opportunities
• Award Guidelines
• Minimum Funding Policy for PhD Students
• Killam Awards & Fellowships
• Dean's Message
• Leadership Team
• Strategic Plan & Priorities
• Vision & Mission
• Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
• Initiatives, Plans & Reports
• Graduate Education Analysis & Research
• Media Enquiries
• Newsletters
• Giving to Graduate Studies

Strategic Priorities

• Strategic Plan 2019-2024
• Improving Student Funding
• Promoting Excellence in Graduate Programs
• Enhancing Graduate Supervision
• Advancing Indigenous Inclusion
• Supporting Student Development and Success
• Reimagining Graduate Education
• Enriching the Student Experience

Initiatives

• Public Scholars Initiative
• 3 Minute Thesis (3MT)
• PhD Career Outcomes

Eight tips to effectively supervise students during their Master's thesis

Jul 30, 2021 PhD

I am a fan of knowledge transfer between peers, teaching what I know to others and learning back from them. At University I frequently helped my fellow course mates with the material, so I was very interested in formally mentoring students when I started my PhD. Luckily my supervisor, who is really talented at this, agreed to let me help him with supervising some Master’s theses. In this article, also published as a Nature Career Column , I present eight lessons that I learned by watching him at work and trying on my own.

I supervised three Master’s students in the past year. One of them was quite good and independent, did not need a lot of guidance and could take care of most things on his own, while the other two required a fair amount of help from us, one of them even coming close to not graduating successfully. Dealing with the difficult situations is when I learned the most important lessons, but regardless of the ability of the students a common thread soon appeared.

But first, here’s a brief digression on how that happened. While I was writing a draft for this blog, I noticed an interesting article on Nature’s newsletter. While I was reading it, I felt its style was quite similar to what I usually aim for in this blog: use headlines to highlight the important points, and elaborate on those with a few paragraphs. I then noticed the author of that column was a PhD student, and I thought: “how comes she has an article there? Why can she do that? Can I do that?”. I quickly found how to do it , finished the draft and sent it to them, and, after eight rounds of review in the course of two months, the article was finally up! The editor was very responsive and we could iterate quickly on the manuscript, and the quality of the writing is so much better than what I had originally sent in. On the other hand, I sometimes felt the message was being warped a bit too much. After the editing process was finished I had to agree to an Embargo Period of six months during which Nature had the exclusive right of publishing the final version on their website. As those six months are now over, I am finally allowed to publish the final version here, too. Enjoy!

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Nature Career Column . The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02028-1 .

The lessons I learnt supervising master’s students for the first time

PhD student Emilio Dorigatti supported three junior colleagues during their degrees.

I started my PhD wanting to improve not only my scientific abilities, but also ‘soft skills’ such as communication, mentoring and project management. To this end, I joined as many social academic activities as I could find, including journal clubs, seminars, teaching assistance, hackathons, presentations and collaborations.

I am a bioinformatics PhD student at the Munich School for Data Science in Germany, jointly supervised by Bernd Bischl at the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich and Benjamin Schubert at the Helmholtz Centre Munich, the German Research Center for Environmental Health. When I went to them asking to gain some experience in communication and mentoring soft skills, they suggested that I co-supervise three of Benjamin’s master’s students.

At first, I felt out of my depth, so I simply sat in on their meetings and listened. After a few months, I began offering technical advice on programming. I then started proposing new analyses and contributions. Eventually I became comfortable enough to propose a new master’s project based on part of my PhD research; Benjamin and I are now interviewing candidates.

I gained a great deal from this experience and I am grateful to both of my supervisors for supporting me, as well as to the students for staying motivated, determined and friendly throughout. Here are some of the things I learnt about how to ensure smooth collaboration and a happy outcome for all of us.

Draft a project plan

With Benjamin and Bernd, I put together a project plan for each of the master’s students. Drafting a two-page plan that ended up resembling an extended abstract for a conference forced us to consider each project in detail and helped to ensure that it was feasible for a student to carry out in their last semester of study.

If you’re a PhD student supervising others, sit down with your own supervisor and agree on your respective responsibilities as part of the project plan. At first, you might want your supervisor to follow you closely to help keep the project on the right path, but as you gain more experience and trust, you might request more autonomy and independence.

Use the project plan to advertise the position and find a suitable student: share it online on the group’s website or on Twitter, as well as on the job board at your department. Advertise it to your students if you are teaching a related topic, and sit back and wait for applicants.

We structured the plans to include a general introduction to the research subject as well as a few key publications. We described the gap in the literature that the project aimed to close, with the proposed methodology and a breakdown of four or five tasks to be achieved during the project. My supervisors and I also agreed on and included specific qualifications that candidates should have, and formalities such as contact information, starting dates and whether a publication was expected at the end.

Benjamin and I decided to propose publishable projects, sometimes as part of a larger paper. We always list the student as one of the authors.

Meet your student regularly

I found that I met with most students for less than an hour per week, but some might require more attention. Most of the time, Benjamin joined the meeting, too. We started with the students summarizing what they had done the previous week and any issues they had encountered. We then had a discussion and brainstorming session, and agreed on possible next steps. I learnt that I do not need to solve all the student’s problems (it is their thesis, after all). Instead, Benjamin and I tried to focus on suggesting a couple of things they could try out. At the end of the meeting, we made sure it was clear what was expected for the next week.

We used the first few weeks to get the students up to speed with the topic, encouraging them to read publications listed in the plan, and a few others, to familiarize themselves with the specific methods that they would be working with. We also addressed administrative matters such as making sure that the students had accounts to access computational resources: networks, e-mail, Wi-Fi, private GitHub repositories and so on.

Encourage regular writing

Good writing takes time, especially for students who are not used to it, or who are writing in a foreign language. It is important to encourage them to write regularly, and to keep detailed notes of what should be included in the manuscript, to avoid missing key details later on. We tried to remind our students frequently how the manuscript should be structured, what chapters should be included, how long each should be, what writing style was expected, what template to use, and other specifics. We used our meetings to provide continuous feedback on the manuscript.

The first two to four weeks of the project are a good time to start writing the first chapters, including an introduction to the topic and the background knowledge. We suggested allocating the last three or four weeks to writing the remaining chapters — results and conclusions — ensuring that the manuscript forms a coherent whole, and preparing and rehearsing the presentation for the oral examination.

Probe for correct understanding

In our weekly meetings, or at other times when I was teaching, I quickly realized that asking ‘did you understand?’ or ‘is that OK?’ every five minutes is not enough. It can even be counterproductive, scaring away less-assertive students.

I learnt to relax a little and take a different approach: when I explained something, I encouraged the students to explain it back in their own words, providing detailed breakdowns of a certain task, anticipating possible problems, and so on.

Ultimately, this came down to probing for understanding of the science, rather than delivering a lecture or grilling an interviewee. Sometimes this approach helps when a student thinks they fully understand something but actually don’t. For example, one of our students was less experienced in programming than others, so for more difficult tasks, we broke the problem down and wrote a sketch of the computer code that they would fill in on their own during the week.

Adapt supervision to the student

Each student requires a different type of supervision, and we tried to adapt our styles to accommodate that. That could mean using Trello project-management boards or a shared Google Doc to record tasks; defining tasks in detail and walking through them carefully; or taking extra time to explain and to fill knowledge gaps. I tried to be supportive by reminding students that they could always send an e-mail if they were stuck on a problem for too long. One of the students found it very helpful to text brief updates outside of scheduled meetings, as a way to hold themselves accountable.

Sometimes, if we felt a student needed to be challenged, we proposed new tasks that were not in the original plan or encouraged them to follow their interest, be it diving into the literature or coming up with further experiments and research questions.

One student conducted a literature review and summarized the pros and cons of the state-of-the-art technology for a follow-up idea we had. That saved some time when we picked up the project after the student left; they learnt lots of interesting things; and the discussion section of the manuscript was much more interesting as a result.

When things go badly, make another plan

Not all projects can be successful, despite your (and your student’s) best efforts. So, as part of each project, my supervisors and I prepared a plan B (and C), working out which tasks were essential and which were just a nice addition. This included a simpler research question that required less work than the original. The initial plan for one of our projects was to compare a newly proposed method with the usual way of doing things, but the new method turned out to be much more difficult than anticipated, so we decided not to do the comparison, and just showed how the new method performed.

Halfway through the project is a good time to evaluate how likely it is that the thesis will be handed in on time and as originally planned. The top priority is to help the student graduate. That might entail either forgoing some of the tasks planned at the beginning, or obtaining an extension of a few months if possible.

Have a final feedback round

After the oral examinations, Benjamin and I met to decide the students’ final grades on the basis of the university’s rubric. We then met the students one last time to tell them our decision, going through each item in the rubric and explaining the motivation for the score we had given. We tried to recall relevant events from the past months to make each student feel the grading was fair.

We also remembered to ask the student for feedback on our supervision and to suggest things they thought we could do better.

Lastly, I encouraged those students to apply for open positions in our lab, and offered to write recommendation letters for them.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Tress Academic

SUPERVISION How we can help you

Want to experience success and satisfaction with your PhD students? Let us teach you how to optimise the quality of your supervision.

Live-Online How To Improve PhD Supervision

1.5-day course

Expert Guide 8 Reasons Why Supervision Can Fail

Free Download

Read How We Helped Others

How We Helped Others With Supervising PhD Students

“Great practical examples and work material for improving the supervision of PhD students. Clear structure, not too much lecture teaching, clear and concise slides, good balance between teaching and practical exercises, helpful hand outs, which can be used in supervision without additional work.”

Postdoc Researcher

KIT/IMK-IFU, Garmisch-Partenkirchen Germany

“It was the first time that I attended a course on PhD supervision. For long time, supervising students has been considered one of the many things scientists simply have to know how to do it. It was learning-by-doing (like everything else). It is very valuable to have a course like this providing a framework for supervision.”

ZALF Müncheberg, Germany

“Great course offering easy and practical tools to improve supervision of students. Easy to follow, well structured, great tools, nice atmosphere, and competent trainer with excellent communication skills.”

University of Oldenburg, Germany

“I’ve never had any training in supervision and so really only had my personal experiences to go on. It was incredibly helpful in this course to get to know concrete steps I can take to be a good supervisor for my students who all have different requirements.”

Junior professor/Group leader

European University of the Seas/Kiel University, Germany

“I really enjoyed the interactive format of the course with exercises in small groups. Online courses I previously attended usually had teacher speaking majority of time. This one was different and really refreshing.”

“It was a very valuable course. It sets a standard for what PhD supervision is supposed to look like.”

Postdoc/researcher

Alfred-Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany

Get Started Yourself!

• Shopping Cart

Supervising PhD Students: A practical guide and toolkit

This book is a guide to the practical activities, strategies and tools used by effective PhD supervisors. It looks at the main processes that relate to PhD supervision: the personal motivations of supervisors, recruitment, clarifying expectations, howto run productive meetings, providing effective feedback, academic writing, the interpersonal challenges that arise during the PhD, the PhD examination, and professional development. We address these key supervisory practices by offering a range of practical advice and activities that can inform and guide supervisors. Throughout the book, we highlight examples of good and bad practice that are inspired by real-life examples.

The book provides a range of templates and supports that supervisors can provide to their PhD students. This is one of our strongest motivations for writing this text – to help supervisors to improve the experience of doctoral research not just for themselves, but also for their PhD students.

Bulk discounts available.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Is it appropriate for assistant professors to supervise PhD students?

As pointed out in another question , the general tendency today as compared from classical times is to make junior professors (at assistant level) more and more independent. However, I wonder that assistant professors (common in the US university) supervise PhD students.

The philosophy of academic ranking is to prepare academics for academic/scientific tasks.

Although, academics normally have postdoc experience before their appointment as assistant professors, it is not mandatory. Moreover, postdoc experience is not experience conducive for the supervising of students.

In relation to the above is it wrong that an inexperienced assistant professor (who is not far from his PhD studentship days) can take control of one or several PhD students?

Does it reduce the quality of the education/research?

• assistant-professor

• 17 How can not having supervised PhD students before be a hindrance? If that was the case then nobody would ever be allowed to supervise anyone. –  Tobias Kildetoft Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44
• 3 @TobiasKildetoft I think the question intends to ask, "Is it appropriate for assistant professors to supervise PhD students alone ?" In some places, PhD students working with an inexperienced advisor are also co-advised by another (more experienced) advisor. –  ff524 Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 12:52
• 2 The different customs re: who can supervise a PhD student in various countries, are discussed in some detail in Assistant professor vs Associate professor –  ff524 Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 15:39
• 2 Around here, a decent researcher would've supervised multiple lower-level (bachelor/master) students and their thesis already during their PhD studies, and would also be more on the 'bleeding edge' of their area research than most professors, so practical experience is not an issue. A more senior scientist might be better when they're available; while the junior one is almost as good but has far more time to devote to that student. –  Peteris Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 17:05
• 2 I have witnessed the situation @Peteris described, and even in a way that it was naturally continued in a way that one of the main responsibilities of postdocs was to provide guidance and support to PhD students - usually on a more frequent and concrete basis than the professor (due to time and presence constraints that professors often face). Hence, by the time a postdoc would become a junior professor, they would have gathered a sufficient amount of experience in co-guiding PhD students already. –  O. R. Mapper Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 21:03

6 Answers 6

Isn't it wrong that an inexperienced assistant professor (who is not far from his PhD studentship days) can take control of one or several PhD students? Don't it reduce the education/research quality?

For certain institutes I've been in, I would find myself asking the opposite question: isn't it wrong for senior professors to supervise students when they have little time for them?

Of course it is not always the case that full professors have no time for their students, but I have seen it happen many times: I've seen cases where students were meeting their official full professor supervisors once a month (or less frequently) and putting names of supervisors on papers that the supervisors had never read. This seems to me to be prevalent in research institutes where the hierarchy tree has a high branching factor to get value out of available funds (few Full Professors, lots of PostDocs / Assistant Professors, even more PhD students and Research Assistants, etc.); in such cases, the priority for senior professors is getting funding for and managing projects. In my case, when I was a PostDoc in such an institute, I was doing the day-to-day supervision of a number of students whose supervisor(s) had no time for them.

Of course it varies from place to place. But my hypothesis is that by the time you reach the Assistant Professor level, either you will have the necessary skills and personality to be a good supervisor, or you will probably never have those skills.

In summary: I don't believe that seniority amongst professors is a good predictor for quality of supervision.

• 4 The "high branching factor" structure you describe sounds suspiciously like a pyramid , hmmm.... –  ff524 Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 16:07
• 2 Complete with slaves and everything! –  badroit Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 16:53
• 4 @ff524 is this phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1144 what you mean? –  Peteris Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 16:55
• @Peteris Nice one, yes! –  ff524 Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 16:56

Isn't it wrong that an inexperienced assistant professor (who is not far from his PhD studentship days) can take control of one or several PhD students?

It is alright for an assistant professor to guide one or several doctoral students. He is not experienced in probably guiding PhD students, but, he is definitely experienced in conducting research, which will help him translate this to guidance.

Don't it reduce the education/research quality?

Well, maybe. Supervising PhD students is a learning activity like most anything else. As such, it is to be expected that maybe when an assistant professor supervises her/his first student, s/he may do things that should would handle differently later on. But this is not tied to the status of the person, but to her/his experience in advising. So if you don't let assistant professors advise PhD students, they would start doing it later on and be equally bad in it, because when would they have learned how to do it?

An additional concern is that there are only so many full professors to go around. While I concede that working with a more senior professor may have advantages, these advantages would likely disappear if every senior professor has to handle significantly more students (as the entire 'advising force' of assistant professors falls away).

I should also add that, in general, assistant professors are not nearly as inexperienced as you seem to assume. Today, at least in my field (CS), there is hardly any assistant professor that did not have multiple years of postdoc experience, which also includes co-supervising master and PhD students. As such, I am not sure if the problem you seem to consider even exists.

Edit based on ff524's comment:

I think the question intends to ask, "Is it appropriate for assistant professors to supervise PhD students alone?" In some places, PhD students working with an inexperienced advisor are also co-advised by another (more experienced) advisor.

Yes, this is actually the case in many well-respected university (dutch universities come to mind right now). I think this is great if the main responsibility/load is still on the junior professor, with the senior person being more an advisor to the advisor than to the student. If the model degenerates into the junior professor basically being a proxy for the senior person, this seems counter-productive.

Of course it's appropriate. In many research-intensive academic departments it's the assistant professors (the younger researchers) that are doing the innovative research.

I had several friends who worked with an assistant professor years ago. That professor later won a Nobel Prize for the work being done in his assistant professor days, with the help of those students.

In many fields, Today's assistant professors are older and more experienced than they were in the past. By the time an assistant professor in math has a student start research they're typically 6+ years out from PhD (3-4 years of postdoc plus a couple years to settle before students are likely to ask). I think that means its pretty reasonable for assistant professors to take students.

I am an assistant professor supervising two Ph.D. students. Everyone in my department seems to be happy with this.

It helps that there are senior faculty who are happy to give advice to me when needed!

I'd rather say: it depends. The question can also be asked as: Is it appropriate for all professors to supervise PhD students?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd advisor assistant-professor ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• MOSFETs keep shorting way below rated current
• Has technology regressed in the Alien universe?
• chess game: loading images for the rooks
• Solve an integral analytically
• General Formula For Hadamard Gate on Superposition State
• Ancestry & FTM- unknown names
• What is the origin and meaning of the phrase “wear the brown helmet”?
• Venus’ LIP period starts today, can we save the Venusians?
• Just got a new job... huh?
• Physical basis of "forced harmonics" on a violin
• Does a Way of the Astral Self Monk HAVE to do force damage with Arms of the Astral Self from 10' away, or can it be bludgeoning?
• Implications of the statement: "Note that it is very difficult to remove Rosetta 2 once it is installed"
• conflict of \counterwithin and cleveref package when sectioncounter is reset
• What is the purpose of toroidal magnetic field in tokamak fusion device?
• How predictable are the voting records of members of the US legislative branch?
• Kyoto is a famous tourist destination/area/site/spot in Japan
• Does H3PO exist?
• UART pin acting as power pin
• Is the oil level here too high that it needs to be drained or can I leave it?
• Can police offer an “immune interview”?
• Extrude Individual Faces function is not working
• What can cause a 24 volt solar panel to output 40 volt?
• Why was I was allowed to bring 1.5 liters of liquid through security at Frankfurt Airport?
• What does it mean to have a truth value of a 'nothing' type instance?

Imperial College London Imperial College London

Latest news.

Solutions to Nigeria’s newborn mortality rate might lie in existing innovations

Research into more efficient AI hardware and software supported by AMD donation

Imperial and Vietnamese partners explore UK and Vietnam's pathways to net zero

• Educational Development Unit
• Introduction to

Supervising PhD students

Introduction to supervising PhD students

Workshop details

Dates for 2024-25 will be available from late August.

Complete the Expression of Interest Form .

Tutors Professor Martyn Kingsbury  and  Dr Jo Horsburgh

From April 2022, new doctoral supervisors at Imperial will be required to complete ' Fundamentals of supervising PhD students ' which is offered by the Graduate School via  Cornerstone . This online course (approximately 2 hours in length) comprises four mini-modules covering: the role of Main and Co-Supervisors; effective student-supervisor partnerships; the PhD timeline, and research culture.

Administrative Enquiries Su Beasley  [email protected]

Who should attend?

Academic staff from across the College who formally supervise research students. Some parts of the workshop are relevant to supervising Masters projects and dissertations, but the focus is on the PhD. This course is particularly strongly recommended for those that are new to supervision and builds on the content of the online course ‘Fundamentals of supervising PhD students’ which is offered by the Graduate School via Cornerstone .

This workshop considers the various stages and milestones of PhD supervision at Imperial and offers practical guidance on recruitment, handling the student/supervisor relationship effectively and how to help students toward completion and emergence as an independent researcher in their discipline.

Postdocs supporting PhD supervision should consider, as an alternative, the workshop Introduction to being an assistant supervisor . If you are involved in PhD supervision and are unsure about which training you require, please see this page on continuing professional development for supervisors and discuss your role with your Head of Department/Director of Postgraduate Studies.

• Key 'milestones' and expectations of the Imperial College process
• Expectations of the student and the supervisor
• Recruiting the student
• Managing the research process
• Student/supervisor relationships
• Using a learning agreement
• The viva and examination process

Imperial STAR Framework

This workshop is particularly suitable for those seeking recognition at D1 or D2 level of the Imperial STAR Framework . It addresses the following dimensions of the Professional Standards Framework (PSF 2023): A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, K5, V1, V3.

You may also be interested in...

A practical guide to giving effective feedback

Addressing a range of issues related to feedback, that is: effectiveness, student expectations, approaches and encouraging engagement.

Introduction to personal tutoring

Helping new tutors prepare themselves for this important role and provides them with information about how they can best support their tutees.

Introduction to making teaching more inclusive

For all staff to consider how inclusive their teaching is of all learners and to explore how they can best facilitate inclusive teaching.

• Open access
• Published: 17 August 2024

Supervisor’s neuroticism and problematic Internet use among graduate students: the mediating role of supervisor-student relationship quality and the moderating role of fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation

• Xiaoyuan Chu 1   na1 ,
• Alafate Litifu 1   na1 ,
• Zhaoyi Zhu 2 ,
• Shihao Ma 1 ,
• Yang Zhou 1 ,
• Qing Gao 3 ,
• Li Lei 4 &
• Jun Wei 5  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2238 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Graduate students exhibit vulnerability to problematic Internet use, which can result in adverse physical, psychological, and social consequences. However, limited studies have addressed this issue among graduate students, and even fewer have explored the unique factors contributing to their problematic Internet use. Therefore, to address this gap, the current study aims to probe the relationship between supervisor’s neuroticism and problematic Internet use among graduate students, the mediating effect of the supervisor-student relationship quality, as well as the moderating effect of fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation.

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2018 at three universities in Beijing, China. Anonymous data from 448 graduate students were collected regarding problematic Internet use, supervisor’s neuroticism, supervisor-student relationship quality, and the fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation. A moderated mediation analysis was performed using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 14).

Supervisor’s neuroticism was positively linked to graduate students’ problematic Internet use, supervisor-student relationship quality mediated the linkage, and fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation played a moderating role in the second stage. Specifically, for students lower in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, supervisor-student relationship quality negatively predicted students’ problematic Internet use. While for the graduate students higher in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, supervisor-student relationship quality could not significantly predict students’ problematic Internet use. The mediating effect was only significant for graduate students lower in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation.

Conclusions

This study established a theoretical model linking supervisor’s neuroticism to graduate students’ problematic Internet use, highlighting the potential roles of supervisor-student relationship quality and fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation. Reducing the neuroticism level of the supervisor, enhancing the quality of the supervisor-student relationship, and mitigating students’ fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation will contribute to the reduction of problematic Internet use among graduate students.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The population of Chinese graduate students is experiencing rapid growth in the last decade. According to the Statistical report on China’s educational achievements in 2022 released by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of the People’s Republic of China, China had over 3,653,600 graduate students by 2022 [ 1 ]. Compared to undergraduates, a higher proportion of graduate students experience high stress [ 2 ], and the prevalence of psychological problems among them is also higher [ 3 ]. Graduate students also exhibit vulnerability to problematic Internet use. Problematic Internet use is conceptualized as excessive online activity associated with marked functional impairment and characterized by addictive, impulsive, and/or compulsive features [ 4 ]. As indicated in an Indian empirical study, 33% of graduate students are at risk of problematic Internet use [ 5 ]. Despite the lack of empirical data from China, the issue of problematic Internet use among graduate students at similar stages of development should not be overlooked. Problematic Internet use can result in severe consequences, including hindered academic progress, academic burnout, anxiety, sleep disturbances, aggression, alexithymia, depression, psychotic-like experiences, and suicidal intentions [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Hence, it is necessary to investigate the underlying mechanisms in the development of problematic Internet use to reduce its occurrence effectively. However, limited studies have addressed this issue among graduate students [ 16 ], and even fewer have explored the unique factors contributing to their problem. This research gap hinders a scientific approach to addressing the issue for graduate students.

Literature review and development of hypotheses

Supervisor’s neuroticism and problematic internet use among graduate students.

Supervisor’s neuroticism can be a potential cause for problematic Internet use among graduate students. Neuroticism is defined as the tendency to exhibit poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affects [ 17 ], which reflects negative affect, emotional instability, and insecurity [ 18 ]. Supervisors high in neuroticism tend to frequently experience intense negative emotions [ 19 ], such as irritability, anger, sadness, anxiety, worry, hostility, and self-consciousness [ 20 ]. According to self-determination theory, human problematic behaviors can be understood as a function of aversive social conditions [ 21 ]. Similarly, problematic Internet use can be seen as a response to real-life negative events and their associated stress; In the face of sustained or elevated stress, individuals may increasingly rely on the Internet to alleviate negative emotions or as compensation, thereby amplifying problematic Internet use risk [ 22 ]. In China, supervisors, who are responsible for mentoring and supervising graduate students, wield significant influence over them. Empirical studies affirm the significant impact of supervisors on graduate students’ psychological and behavioral outcomes, such as learned helplessness, academic procrastination, depression, life satisfaction, and suicidal ideation [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Supervisors with high levels of neuroticism can increase stress levels for graduate students. Individuals high in neuroticism not only tend to experience high levels of stress themselves [ 26 ] but also tend to cause stress for those around them [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. They exhibit more negative relational and aggressive behaviors [ 30 , 31 ]. Interactions with individuals high in neuroticism often result in discomfort [ 32 ]. Prolonged contact with them may even lead to psychological and behavioral issues [ 28 , 33 ]. Considering that supervisors have a significant impact on graduate students, those with high levels of neuroticism tend to cause stress to those around them [ 27 , 28 , 29 ], and this stress can lead to problematic Internet use [ 22 ]. Supervisor’s neuroticism might be a potential contributing factor to graduate students’ problematic Internet use. Although no studies have empirically tested this linkage, given the literature above, the following hypothesis was reasonably deduced:

Hypothesis 1 : Supervisor’s neuroticism would be positively associated with problematic Internet use among graduate students.

The mediating role of supervisor-student relationship quality

Supervisor-student relationship quality might play a mediating role in the association between a supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use. This relationship quality is defined as the level of mutual trust, understanding, and support between a graduate student and their supervisor [ 34 ]. It includes the supervisor’s comprehension of the student’s research interests, needs, and potential, and the supervisor’s willingness to utilize their resources and experience to assist the student in overcoming research challenges [ 34 ]. The supervisor-student relationship is emphasized as being an important factor in successful postgraduate education [ 35 ]. Previous studies on graduate students have confirmed the significance of this relationship. For instance, it positively predicts academic aspiration, research learning engagement, and innovation pursuits [ 36 , 37 ].

According to self-determination theory, when analyzing the mechanisms underlying problematic behaviors, one should first consider the individual’s immediate social context to determine whether their psychological needs (such as relatedness) are being satisfied, which could protect them from the development of behavioral outcomes [ 21 ]. A supervisor’s low neuroticism might facilitate the supervisor-student relationship quality to satisfy graduate students’ need for relatedness, which may further protect them from developing problematic Internet use.

Supervisor’s neuroticism might also affect supervisor-student relationship quality. Individuals high in neuroticism usually have core beliefs of a negative-self [ 38 ]. Individuals with negative self-beliefs tend to notice negative interpersonal interactions and typically engage with others in a negative manner [ 39 ]. They are more sensitive to negative social cues and exhibit more negative behaviors in interpersonal interactions [ 40 , 41 ]. They often bring work and life issues into other interpersonal interactions [ 42 ]. Thus, high neuroticism typically results in poorer interpersonal relationships. A meta-analysis shows that individuals’ neuroticism is negatively related to relationship satisfaction for people with whom they interact closely [ 43 ]. As mentioned above, supervisor functions as an important immediate social condition for graduate students and exerts a significant impact on their development. Based on the preceding analysis, it is reasonable to deduce that supervisor’s neuroticism negatively predicts supervisor-student relationship quality.

At the same time, high supervisor-student relationship quality may protect graduate students from developing problematic Internet use. Self-determination theory asserts that high-quality interpersonal relationships, which meet psychological needs, can boost individual psychological and behavioral outcomes, whereas poor ones lead to psychological issues or behavioral problems [ 21 , 44 ]. Empirical studies indicate that teacher-student relationship can negatively predict problematic Internet use for both high school students and undergraduates [ 45 , 46 ]. Given the significance of the relationship with the supervisor for postgraduates, the quality of this relationship likely influences graduate students’ problematic Internet use. Considering the potential impact of supervisor’s neuroticism on the supervisor-student relationship quality, and its subsequent potential influence on graduate students’ problematic Internet use, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 2 : The association between supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use would be mediated by supervisor-student relationship quality.

The moderating role of fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation

Fear of negative evaluation refers to the apprehension an individual feels about receiving unfavorable judgments, evaluations, or feedback [ 47 ]. Similarly, fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation refers to graduate students’ apprehension about the supervisor’s assessments, distress over negative evaluations, and the expectation of negative evaluations from the supervisor [ 48 ]. Previous studies affirm that fear of negative evaluation can lead to problematic Internet use [ 49 , 50 , 51 ].

Moreover, fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation might moderate the association between the supervisor-student relationship quality and graduate students’ problematic Internet use. According to the cognitive model of social anxiety, individuals with a high fear of negative evaluation not only tend to recognize negative cues in interactions but also often experience heightened emotional arousal from these cues; This arousal can lead to avoidance of interactions and even a tendency toward self-imposed isolation [ 52 ]. Avoiding interpersonal contacts diminishes the benefits of high-quality relationships. In other words, the fear of negative evaluation might moderate the protective effect of beneficial interpersonal interactions on psychological/behavioral outcomes. While no direct empirical study validates this moderating effect, similar effects are found in the moderation of self-esteem on the association between interpersonal interactions and psychological outcomes: low self-esteem not only exerts an aversive impact on distress and subjective well-being but also diminishes the protective effect of high social support since individuals with low self-esteem might tend to avoid social contacts [ 53 , 54 ]. Moreover, self-esteem is negatively correlated with the fear of negative evaluation [ 50 , 55 , 56 ]. Low self-esteem can be manifested as social anxiety in interpersonal connections [ 57 ], the defining feature of which is a fear of negative evaluation [ 56 ]. Graduate students with a heightened fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation may not experience the full benefits of a supportive supervisory relationship due to their ongoing concerns about potential criticism which drives them to avoid potential contacts and interactions with their supervisors. This could also diminish the otherwise protective effects of a high-quality supervisor-student relationship on problematic Internet use. To put it differently, a high degree of fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation is likely to attenuate the effect of the high-quality supervisor-student relationship on reducing graduate students’ problematic Internet use. Hence, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 3 : Fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation not only would positively link to graduate students’ problematic Internet use but also would moderate the relationship between supervisor-student relationship quality and graduate students’ problematic Internet use. Specifically, the negative association between supervisor-student relationship quality and graduate students’ problematic Internet use would be weaker for students with a higher fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation.

Research gap and the present study

Numerous studies have explored the formation mechanisms of problematic Internet use among students. However, these studies have primarily centered on adolescents and undergraduates [ 16 ], with limited attention given to graduate students, and even fewer have explored the unique factors contributing to their problems. Therefore, it is crucial to address this research gap by focusing on the formation mechanisms of problematic Internet use among graduate students. To improve our understanding of these mechanisms, drawing upon the self-determination theory [ 21 , 44 ], and the cognitive model of social anxiety [ 52 ], we proposed a moderated mediation model to investigate the relationship between supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use (Fig.  1 ). Specifically, we aim to test the following three hypotheses: Supervisor’s neuroticism would be positively associated with problematic Internet use among graduate students (H1); The association between supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use would be mediated by supervisor-student relationship quality (H2); Fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation would moderate the second stage of the indirect association. For students with a lower fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, the mediating effect of supervisor-student relationship quality would be stronger (H3).

The proposed moderated mediation model

Design and settings

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2018. Data were collected using convenience sampling in three universities in Beijing, China. The universities were chosen as a convenience sample based on the authors’ contacts with instructors of public compulsory courses, who allowed data collection in class, while students’ participation was completely voluntary. One university is known for its strengths in Natural Sciences, Mathematics, Humanities, and Social Sciences; another is renowned for its Technology and Engineering programs; and the third is primarily focused on Humanities.

Procedure and participants

There were two inclusion criteria in this study: (1) All participants included in the study should be actively enrolled graduate students; (2) Participants are willing to cooperate and complete the questionnaire. The study’s purpose was explained before administering a questionnaire with standardized instructions in classrooms across three universities. The anonymity was ensured and participants could withdraw from the study without negative consequences. The questionnaire assessed problematic Internet use, supervisor’s neuroticism, supervisor-student relationship quality, and fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation. Participants independently completed the questionnaire within 15 min.

Sample size

The minimum sample size was determined using G-Power software [ 58 ], based on correlation coefficients reported in previous literature as the effect sizes (ρ) [ 45 , 59 , 60 ]. A bivariate normal model for correlation was applied to calculate the sample size. The parameters used for the calculation were as follows: the correlation between abusive supervision and academic procrastination among graduate students was 0.34 [ 59 ], which was used to estimate the correlation between supervisor’s neuroticism and problematic Internet use among graduate students. For neuroticism and relationship quality, the correlation between neuroticism and partner’s satisfaction was -0.19 [ 60 ]. The correlation between the teacher-student relationship and problematic Internet use among students was -0.33 [ 45 ]. Based on these findings, the minimum sample size was determined to be 215 to maintain a Type I error rate of less than 0.05 and a power greater than 0.80.

Sociodemographic characteristics

The sociodemographic information of all participants, including age, gender, and major were collected. Age and major were reported by participants while gender was chosen with two options, i.e., male and female. The major was categorized as a dichotomous variable with two options: Natural Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS).

• Problematic internet use

Problematic Internet use was assessed using the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) developed by Young [ 61 ]. The scale evaluates the severity of problematic Internet use, has been widely used among Chinese students [ 16 ], and has been demonstrated good reliability and validity among Chinese participants [ 62 ]. It consists of 20 items, each with a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (always). An example item is “How often do you find that you stay on-line longer than you intended?”. The mean scale represents problematic Internet use, which ranges from 1 to 5. A higher score indicates a stronger tendency for problematic Internet use. The Cronbach’s α value for the current study was 0.93.

• Supervisor’s neuroticism

Supervisor’s neuroticism was assessed using the observer-rating method. Graduate students rated their supervisors using the neuroticism subscale of the Big-Five Inventory (BFI) [ 63 ]. This method of personality measurement has been widely used in numerous studies [ 64 ] and the scale demonstrates good reliability and validity among Chinese participants [ 65 ]. The neuroticism subscale is comprised of eight items, and participants rated each on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item is “I see my supervisor as someone who gets nervous easily”. The average score represents the neuroticism level of the supervisors. A higher score indicates a higher level of supervisor’s neuroticism. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.74.

• Supervisor-student relationship quality

The supervisor-student relationship quality was measured using a 7-item Supervisor-Student Relationship Quality Questionnaire which was revised by Yu et al. [ 34 ]. The items were adapted from Graen and Uhl-Bien’s Leader-Member Exchange Differentiation Scale [ 66 ]. It employs a Likert 5-point scale. Example items are: “I trust my supervisor and support all of his/her research-related plans and decisions”, “I have a great relationship with my supervisor”, and “My supervisor is willing to sacrifice his/her interests to help me achieve my research goals and overcome research difficulties”. An additional file provides the English translation of all the items in this questionnaire [see Additional file 1]. It has shown good reliability and validity among Chinese participants [ 34 ]. The mean value represents supervisor-student relationship quality. A higher score indicates a better quality of the supervisor-student relationship. The Cronbach’s α coefficient for this study was 0.86.

• Fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation

Fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation was assessed using an 8-item Questionnaire of Fear of Advisors’ Negative Evaluation revised by Lu and Li [ 48 ]. This scale, developed from Leary’s brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale [ 67 ], has shown good reliability and validity among Chinese participants [ 48 ]. It uses a Likert 5-point scale, with example items being “I am frequently afraid of my supervisor noticing my shortcomings”, “I worry about what my supervisor will think of me even when I know it doesn't make any difference”, and “When I am talking to my supervisor, I worry about what he/she may be thinking about me”. An additional file provides the English translation of all the items in this questionnaire [see Additional file 1]. The mean score represents the level of fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation with higher scores indicating more intense fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.92.

Statistical analysis

Before analysis, responses with missing data were excluded from the data processing due to their low proportions of all variables and items (< 1%). Given that the data collection method was self-report questionnaires, a test for common method bias was conducted. Then, descriptive analysis was first conducted on the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. Categorical variables (i.e. gender and major) were presented as percentages, and continuous variable (i.e. age) was presented as the mean (SD). Thereafter, t-tests comparing the scores of problematic Internet use between different groups (categorized by gender and major respectively) were reported. After that, the relationship between the supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use was preliminarily examined using a zero-order Pearson correlation analysis. Subsequently, Hayes’ PROCESS macro Model 4 [ 68 ] was employed to test the mediating role of the supervisor-student relationship quality in the association between the supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use. Finally, Hayes’ PROCESS macro Model 14 [ 68 ] was applied to test whether the fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation moderated the second path of the mediating effect. Before applying the PROCESS Models 4 and 14, standardized scores for all continuous variables were calculated, along with the interaction term derived from the standardized scores. Bootstrapping with 5000 samples and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals ( CIs ) was used to determine the significance of the mediation effect and the moderated mediation effect. Gender, age, and major were controlled during the analysis using PROCESS Models 4 and 14. A simple slopes analysis was used to examine the interaction between the supervisor-student relationship quality and the fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, with gender, age, and major included as covariates. To shed light on the moderating effect, we plotted supervisor-student relationship quality on graduate students’ problematic Internet use separately for participants low and high in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation (1 SD below and above the mean, respectively). All the analyses were performed using the SPSS software (Version 29.0; IBM), and the PROCESS macro for SPSS (version 4.1) was used to establish the mediation and moderated mediation models.

Check for common method bias

Using the Harman single-factor test, unrotated factor analysis indicated that only 23.72% of the variance was explained by the first principal factor, which is below the 50% criterion [ 69 ], indicating there was no serious common method bias.

Initially, the sample consisted of 458 graduate students. After listwise deletion of responses with missing data, the final sample size was reduced to 448. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the subjects and the independent samples t-tests of the problematic Internet use scores across different characteristics. Among the 448 graduate students, 232 (51.79%) were males and 216 (48.21%) were females. Of the participants, 386 (86.16%) were majoring in Natural Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), while 62 (13.84%) were majoring in Humanities and Social Sciences. The average age of the participants was 23.13 years (SD = 1.06), ranging from 21 to 29 years. There is no significant gender difference in the problematic Internet use of graduate students, nor is there a significant difference based on major.

Bivariate correlation analysis

To initially explore the relationships among the variables, the means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated and presented in Table  2 . Supervisor’s neuroticism was positively correlated with graduate students’ problematic Internet use ( r  = 0.22, p  < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Moreover, supervisor-student relationship quality negatively correlated with both supervisor’s neuroticism ( r  = -0.29, p  < 0.001) and graduate students’ problematic Internet use ( r  = -0.22, p  < 0.001). In addition, fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation was positively correlated with problematic Internet use of graduate students ( r  = 0.12, p  < 0.05).

Test of the mediation model

Hypothesis 2 stated that supervisor-student relationship quality mediated the connection between supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use. To test this hypothesis, Model 4 of the PROCESS macro was employed [ 68 ]. After adjusting for covariates, the pathway model of the mediation analysis is shown in Fig.  2 , which corresponds to Table  3 . The findings indicated that supervisor’s neuroticism negatively predicts the supervisor-student relationship quality ( b  = -0.30, p  < 0.001), which in turn negatively predicted the graduate students’ problematic Internet use ( b  = -0.16, p  < 0.001). The bias-corrected Bootstrap test revealed a significant indirect effect of supervisor’s neuroticism on graduate students’ problematic Internet use via supervisor-student relationship quality (indirect effect = 0.05, SE  = 0.02, 95% CI  = [0.02, 0.09]). The direct effect of supervisor’s neuroticism on graduate students’ problematic Internet use was also significant ( b  = 0.19, SE  = 0.05, 95% CI  = [0.09, 0.28]). Hence, supervisor-student relationship quality partially mediated the connection between supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use, which supported Hypothesis 2.

Statistical diagram of the mediation model

Test of the moderated mediation model

Hypothesis 3 posited that fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation moderated the second pathway of the indirect relationship between supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use via the supervisor-student relationship quality. To test this hypothesis, Model 14 of the PROCESS macro was applied [ 68 ]. The findings (as presented in Table  4 ) indicated fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation moderated the association between supervisor-student relationship quality and graduate students’ problematic Internet use ( b  = 0.12, p  < 0.001). The bias-corrected percentile bootstrap further supported the moderated mediation model (index of moderated mediation = -0.04, SE  = 0.02, 95% CI  = [-0.07, -0.01]). This implied that fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation moderated the second path of the association between supervisor’s neuroticism and problematic Internet use among graduated students via the supervisor-student relationship. Simple slope tests (Fig.  3 ) indicated that for students low in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, supervisor-student relationship quality negatively predicted students’ problematic Internet use ( b simple  = -0.27, t  = -4.95, p  < 0.001). However, for the graduate students high in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, supervisor-student relationship quality could not significantly predict students’ problematic Internet use ( b simple  = -0.02, t  = -0.33 p  > 0.05). Findings supported Hypothesis 3.

Moderation of FSNE on SSRQ and problematic Internet use of graduate students.  Note: FSNE, Fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation; SSRQ, supervisor-student relationship quality

While numerous studies have explored the causes of problematic Internet use [ 70 , 71 , 72 ], few have addressed this issue among postgraduates, despite their notable vulnerability [ 5 ]. Moreover, research has rarely delved into the unique factors contributing to postgraduates’ problematic Internet use, with none considering supervisor’s neuroticism. To fill this gap, this study aims to explore the mechanism linking supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students' problematic Internet use, revealing the following findings: Supervisor’s neuroticism was positively associated with problematic Internet use among graduate students. Supervisor-student relationship quality mediated this association, and fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation moderated the second stage of this mediation. These findings enhance our understanding of how and for whom supervisor’s neuroticism relates to problematic Internet use among graduate students and offer insights for potential interventions.

It is the first empirical study connecting supervisor’s neuroticism with problematic Internet use among graduate students. Although an earlier study has noted a similar connection between a mother’s neuroticism and her child’s problematic Internet use [ 33 ], the influence of genetics cannot be dismissed. In other words, the previous study’s association should be understood through both environmental and genetic lenses. The current study’s findings bolster the notion that one’s neuroticism, viewed as an immediate social context factor, might affect the problematic Internet use of those in close interaction. To our knowledge, no prior empirical studies have directly confirmed this notion.

This study is the first to empirically test the mediating role of supervisor-student relationship quality in the link between supervisor’s neuroticism and graduate students’ problematic Internet use. To date, no studies have explored the underlying mechanism of this connection. Supervisors exhibiting high neuroticism often engage in negative interactions [ 39 ] with students, decreasing their relationship satisfaction [ 32 ] and subsequently escalating the risk for problematic behaviors [ 21 , 44 , 45 ] among postgraduates.

In addition to the overall mediating effect, every independent link of the mediating process merits attention. For the link between supervisor’s neuroticism and supervisor-student relationship quality, the result aligns with our theoretical deduction [ 39 ]. Previous studies have demonstrated that an individual’s neuroticism negatively impacts a partner’s marital satisfaction [ 43 ]. Partner relationships, founded on a relatively good understanding of each other, make it difficult to exclude the possibility that individuals selecting high-neuroticism partners might already hold negative expectations about the intimate relationship. In contrast, while the supervisor-student relationship is also based on mutual selection, it involves a less comprehensive understanding of each other. Therefore, this study provides more robust empirical evidence that an individual’s high neuroticism can indeed have a detrimental effect on interpersonal relationships, particularly within the context of the supervisor-student dynamic.

Regarding the link between supervisor-student relationship quality and problematic Internet use, the results indicated that high supervisor-student relationship quality protected graduate students from problematic Internet use, aligning with the self-determination theory [ 21 , 44 ]. While previous studies have shown that the teacher-student relationship can negatively predict problematic Internet use among high school students and undergraduates [ 45 , 46 ], these populations are in developmental stages and are more susceptible to immediate social context influences. This research extends these findings to a more mature demographic, indicating that the quality of the teacher-student relationship remains significantly impactful even for adults.

High fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation not only intensified students’ problematic Internet use but also diminished the protective effect of high supervisor-student relationship quality [ 51 ]. These findings align with the cognitive model of social anxiety [ 52 ]. This study is the first to empirically test the moderating effect of fear of negative evaluation on the protective effect of beneficial interpersonal interactions regarding psychological/behavioral outcomes. The findings revealed a pattern similar to previous research on self-esteem’s moderating role [ 53 , 54 ], indicating that the protective effect of beneficial interpersonal interactions is effective only when fear of negative evaluation is low or self-esteem is high. These results further elucidate the boundary conditions for the efficacy of the protective effect of beneficial interpersonal interactions.

Practical implications

This study suggests that heightened supervisor neuroticism can increase the risk of problematic Internet use among graduate students. Therefore, it is recommended that supervisors actively reduce their neuroticism through long-term mindfulness training or cognitive therapy [ 73 , 74 ], which have been shown to be effective in reducing neurotic tendencies.

Furthermore, the quality of the supervisor-student relationship mediates this effect. This means that improving the supervisor-student relationship can help mitigate the adverse impacts of supervisor’s neuroticism on graduate students’ Internet use. Compared to altering relatively stable personality traits, enhancing the supervisor-student relationship is a more practical approach to reducing problematic Internet use among graduate students in the short term. Supervisors should recognize the critical role of their relationship with students and take proactive actions to enhance its quality. This includes showing respect and care, and providing tangible emotional support through active listening, understanding, and encouragement [ 75 ]. Additionally, supervisors can improve relationship quality by fostering closeness through personalized interactions, spending more time together, and uncovering shared interests with students [ 76 ].

Moreover, this research indicates that the fear of a supervisor’s negative evaluation moderates the indirect association between supervisor neuroticism and problematic Internet use. Specifically, the protective effect of a high-quality supervisor-student relationship is significant only when graduate students have a low fear of their supervisor’s negative evaluation. Therefore, implementing interventions like cognitive-behavioral therapy to reduce students’ fear of negative evaluation [ 77 ] can bolster the protective effects afforded by a high-quality supervisor-student relationship.

Limitations and future directions

The current study offered a theoretical framework to understand the relationship between supervisor’s neuroticism and problematic Internet use among graduate students. However, several limitations still exist and deserve attention in future studies. Firstly, this study focused solely on one dimension of supervisor’s personality. However, other traits and cognitive-behavioral aspects might also be pivotal for the outcomes. Secondly, further research is required to unveil the more underlying mechanisms connecting supervisor’s neuroticism with problematic Internet use among graduate students. While the self-verification theory [ 39 ] posits that supervisor’s high neuroticism can weaken the supervisor-student bond, the self-determination theory [ 21 , 44 ] suggests that risk amplification of problematic Internet use for graduate students might be the further result. Nonetheless, other connections might exist between supervisor’s neuroticism and students’ Internet behaviors. Third, this research used a cross-sectional design. Future studies should employ a longitudinal approach to validate causal relationships.

The present study established a moderated mediation model to investigate the potential influence of supervisor’s neuroticism on graduate students’ problematic Internet use, revealing the underlying mechanisms. Results indicated supervisor’s neuroticism was positively linked to graduate students’ problematic Internet use, supervisor-student relationship quality mediated the linkage, and fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation played a moderating role in the second stage. Specifically, for students lower in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, supervisor-student relationship quality negatively predicted students’ problematic Internet use. While for the graduate students higher in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation, supervisor-student relationship quality could not significantly predict the problematic Internet use. The mediating effect was only significant for graduate students lower in fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation. The findings suggest that reducing the neuroticism level of supervisors, enhancing the quality of the supervisor-student relationship, and mitigating students’ fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation will contribute to the reduction of problematic internet use among graduate students.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ministry of education of People’s Republic of China: statistical report on China’s educational achievements in 2022. http://en.moe.gov.cn/documents/reports/202304/t20230403_1054100.html(2023 ). Accessed 30 Sept 2023.

Wyatt T, Oswalt SB. Comparing mental health issues among undergraduate and graduate students. Am J Health Educ. 2013;44(2):96–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2013.764248 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Luo W, Zhong B, Chiu H. Prevalence of depressive symptoms among Chinese university students amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2021;30:e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000202 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liu L, Yao Y, Fang X, Xu L, Hu M, Zhang J, et al. Compulsivity-related behavioral features of problematic usage of the internet: a scoping review of paradigms, progress, and perspectives. J Behav Addict. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2024.00023 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shettar M, Karkal R, Kakunje A, Mendonsa RD, Chandran VVM. Facebook addiction and loneliness in the post-graduate students of a university in southern India. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2017;63(4):325–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764017705895 .

Yang GH, Cao XX, Fu YY, Wang ND, Lian SL. Mobile phone addiction and academic burnout: the mediating role of technology conflict and the protective role of mindfulness. Front Psychiatry. 2024;15:1365914. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1365914 .

Luengo-González R, Noriega-Matanza MC, Espín-Lorite EJ, García-Sastre MM, Rodríguez-Rojo IC, Cuesta-Lozano D, et al. The role of life satisfaction in the association between problematic technology use and anxiety in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2023;32(1):212–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.13077 .

Liu QQ, Zhou ZK, Yang XJ, Kong FC, Niu GF, Fan CY. Mobile phone addiction and sleep quality among Chinese adolescents: a moderated mediation model. Comput Human Behav. 2017;72:108–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.042 .

Wu J, Yang Z, Wu M, Huang H. The relationship between college students’ mobile phone addiction and aggression: a moderated mediation model. Appl Res Qual Life. 2023;18:1037–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-022-10126-z .

Yang H, Wang Z, Jiang Y, Tang J. Absolute and relative preferences for mobile phone internet content, mobile phone dependence, and depressive symptoms: a study of Chinese university students in the post-pandemic era. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1247438. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1247438 .

Alageel AA, Alyahya RA, Bahatheq YA, Alzunaydi NA, Alghamdi RA, Alrahili NM, et al. Smartphone addiction and associated factors among postgraduate students in an Arabic sample: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):302.  https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-135808/v1 .

Balhara YPS, Mahapatra A, Sharma P, Bhargava R. Problematic internet use among students in South-East Asia: current state of evidence. Indian J Public Health. 2018;62(3):197–210. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.ijph_288_17 .

Kang M, Xu B, Chen C, Wang D. Internet addiction and suicidal ideation among Chinese college students: the mediating role of psychotic-like experiences. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1276496. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1276496 .

Chamarro A, Díaz-Moreno A, Bonilla I, Cladellas R, Griffiths MD, Gómez-Romero MJ, et al. Stress and suicide risk among adolescents: the role of problematic internet use, gaming disorder and emotional regulation. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):326. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17860-z .

Li GQ, Conti AA, Qiu CJ, Tang WJ. Adolescent mobile phone addiction during the COVID-19 pandemic predicts subsequent suicide risk: a two-wave longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1537. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13931-1 .

Lei H, Li SY, Chiu MM, Lu MH. Social support and Internet addiction among mainland Chinese teenagers and young adults: a meta-analysis. Comput Human Behav. 2018;85:200–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.041 .

Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):765–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 .

Juchem CM, Bendau A, Bandurski LC, Reich NJ, Baumgardt S, Asselmann E. Personality changes related to presence and treatment of substance use (disorders): a systematic review. Psychol Med. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172400093X .

Barlow DH, Curreri AJ, Woodard LS. Neuroticism and disorders of emotion: a new synthesis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2021;30(5):410–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211030253 .

Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. Four ways five factors are basic. Pers Individ Dif. 1992;13(6):653–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I .

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 .

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kardefelt-Winther D. A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: towards a model of compensatory internet use. Comput Human Behav. 2014;31:351–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059 .

Wu WH, He Q. The roles of moral disengagement and learned helplessness towards international postgraduate students’ academic procrastination. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022;15:1085–104. https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.S343135 .

Zhou L, Geng J, Wang X, Lei L. The role of basic needs in the relationship between supervisor-induced ostracism and mental health among postgraduate students. Psychol Dev Educ. 2021;37(2):222–9. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2021.02.09 .

Yao YY, Dong FB, Qiao ZH. Perceived abusive supervision and graduate students’ suicidal ideation: from the perspective of interpersonal psychological theory of suicide. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01136-z .

Bellingtier JA, Mund M, Wrzus C. The role of extraversion and neuroticism for experiencing stress during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Psychol. 2021;42(14):12202–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02600-y .

Ellenbogen MA, Hodgins S. The impact of high neuroticism in parents on children’s psychosocial functioning in a population at high risk for major affective disorder: a family–environmental pathway of intergenerational risk. Dev Psychopathol. 2004;16(1):113–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579404044438 .

Hellmuth JC, McNulty JK. Neuroticism, marital violence, and the moderating role of stress and behavioral skills. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;95(1):166–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.166 .

Estlein R, Lavee Y. Effect of daily stress on desire for physical proximity and emotional closeness. J Fam Issues. 2022;43(4):1039–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x211007528 .

Lange A, Rasmussen B, Esplin CR, Clark MS, Braithwaite SS. Neuroticism’s ties to relationship satisfaction: the role of conflict tactic behaviors. Sex Relatsh Ther. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2024.2307448 .

Dong YH, Liu FF, Jiang YJ, Wei SY. Neuroticism and aggressive behavior among left-behind children: the mediating roles of interpersonal sensitivity and bullying victimization. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):11072. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711072 .

Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Schutte NS, Bhullar N, Rooke SE. The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: a meta-analysis. J Res Pers. 2010;44(1):124–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004 .

Zhang G, Zhou Z, Zhang Y, Zhu J, Lu Z, Zhang Z, et al. A study on inclination of adolescents with internet addiction disorder and social psychic factors. Chin J Behav Med & Brain Sci. 2008;17(6):498–500. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-6554.2008.06.007 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Yu X, Zhao J, Wu X. Empirical analysis on the status and influence of the supervisor-students relationship in universities. J Tianjin Univ (Soc Sci). 2017;19(2):157–61.

Google Scholar  

East M, Bitchener J, Basturkmen H. What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students’ perspective. J Univ Teach Learn Pract. 2012;9(2):7. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.9.2.7 .

Zhang JH, Wu MY, Zhang GJ. The influence of supervisor-postgraduate relationship on Master’s students’ research learning engagement-the mediating effect of academic aspiration. Behav Sci (Basel). 2024;14(4):334. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14040334 .

Fan L, Mahmood M, Uddin MA. Supportive Chinese supervisor, innovative international students: a social exchange theory perspective. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2019;20(1):101–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9572-3 .

Otani K, Suzuki A, Matsumoto Y, Shirata T, Noto K, Kanno M. Implication of core beliefs about negative-self in neuroticism. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2020;24(3):278–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2020.1764586 .

Swann WB Jr. The trouble with change: Self-verification and allegiance to the self. Psychol Sci. 1997;8(3):177–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00407.x .

Pang Y, Wu S. Mediating effects of negative cognitive bias and negative affect on neuroticism and depression. Curr Psychol. 2021;42(9):7060–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02052-4 .

McNulty JK. Neuroticism and interpersonal negativity: The independent contributions of perceptions and behaviors. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008;34(11):1439–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208322558 .

Wayne JH, Musisca N, Fleeson W. Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: relationships of the big five to work–family conflict and facilitation. J Vocat Behav. 2004;64(1):108–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00035-6 .

Sayehmiri K, Kareem KI, Abdi K, Dalvand S, Gheshlagh RG. The relationship between personality traits and marital satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychol. 2020;8:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0383-z .

Deci EL, Olafsen AH, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2017;4(1):19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 .

Jia J, Li D, Li X, Zhou Y, Wang Y, Sun W. Psychological security and deviant peer affiliation as mediators between teacher-student relationship and adolescent Internet addiction. Comput Human Behav. 2017;73:345–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.063 .

Shi Z, Guan J, Chen H, Liu C, Ma J, Zhou Z. Teacher-student relationships and smartphone addiction: the roles of achievement goal orientation and psychological resilience. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(20):17074–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02902-9 .

Weeks JW, Heimberg RG, Fresco DM, Hart TA, Turk CL, Schneier FR, et al. Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of the brief fear of negative evaluation scale in patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychol Assess. 2005;17(2):179–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.179 .

Lu Y, Li Y. The relationship of graduate students’ fear of advisors’ negative evaluation to implicit theories of master-apprentice relationship. J Psychol Sci. 2014;37(6):1415–20.  https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2014.06.022 .

Casale S, Akbari M, Bocci Benucci S, et al. Interpersonally-based fears and problematic social networking site use: the moderating role of online social support. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00908-9 .

Naidu S, Chand A, Pandaram A, Patel A. Problematic internet and social network site use in young adults: the role of emotional intelligence and fear of negative evaluation. Pers Individ Dif. 2023;200:111915.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111915 .

Zsido AN, Arato N, Lang A, Labadi B, Stecina D, Bandi SA. The connection and background mechanisms of social fears and problematic social networking site use: a structural equation modeling analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2020;292:113323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113323 .

Lipton MF, Qasmieh N, Racz SJ, Weeks JW, De Los RA. The fears of evaluation about performance (FEAP) task: inducing anxiety-related responses to direct exposure to negative and positive evaluations. Behav Ther. 2020;51(6):843–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2020.01.004 .

Liu FB, Li N, Xi Y. Impacts of family functioning on social avoidance and distress among people with disabilities: a moderated mediating model. Curr Psychol. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05937-2 .

Kong F, Zhao J, You X. Self-esteem as mediator and moderator of the relationship between social support and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Soc Indic Res. 2013;112(1):151–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0044-6 .

Cheng G, Zhang D, Ding F. Self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation as mediators between family socioeconomic status and social anxiety in Chinese emerging adults. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2015;61(6):569–76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764014565405 .

Gök BG, Yalçinkaya-Alkar O. Clarifying the association of social anxiety with cognitive variables: the role of self-esteem, self-perception, fears of positive and negative evaluation, and post-event processing. Scand J Psychol. 2023;64(3):278–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12886 .

Schlenker BR, Leary MR. Social anxiety and self-presentation: a conceptualization model. Psychol Bull. 1982;92(3):641–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641 .

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146 .

Ni S, Dong R, Yang R, Wang R. Abusive supervision and academic procrastination in undergraduates: a multiple mediation model. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2015;23(06):1112–5.  https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2015.06.036 .

Barelds DPH. Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. Eur J Pers. 2005;19(6):501–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.549 .

Young KS. Caught in the net: how to recognize the signs of Internet addiction–and a winning strategy for recovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.

Lai CM, Mak KK, Watanabe H, Ang RP, Pang JS, Ho RCM. Psychometric properties of the internet addiction test in Chinese adolescents. J Pediatr Psychol. 2013;38(7):794–807. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst022 .

John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. The big five inventory-versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research; 1991.

Connelly BS, Ones DS. An other perspective on personality: meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychol Bull. 2010;136(6):1092–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212 .

Carciofo R, Yang J, Song N, Du F, Zhang K. Psychometric evaluation of Chinese-language 44-item and 10-item big five personality Inventories, including correlations with chronotype, mindfulness and mind wandering. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0149963.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149963 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh Q. 1995;6(2):219–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 .

Leary MR. A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1983;9(3):371–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167283093007 .

Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 .

Dhamnetiya D, Singh S, Jha RP. Correlates of problematic internet use among undergraduate medical students of Delhi. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21:511. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03529-z .

Sánchez-Fernández M, Borda-Mas M, Mora-Merchán J. Problematic internet use by university students and associated predictive factors: a systematic review. Comput Human Behav. 2023;28(6):7111–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107532 .

Yuan GZ, Elhai JD, Hall BJ. The influence of depressive symptoms and fear of missing out on severity of problematic smartphone use and Internet gaming disorder among Chinese young adults: a three-wave mediation model. Addict Behav. 2021;112: 106648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106648 .

Hanley AW, de Vibe M, Solhaug I, Gonzalez-Pons K, Garland EL. Mindfulness training reduces neuroticism over a 6-year longitudinal randomized control trial in Norwegian medical and psychology students. J Res Pers. 2019;82: 103859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103859 .

Armstrong L, Rimes KA. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for neuroticism (stress vulnerability): a pilot randomized study. Behav Ther. 2016;47(3):287–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.12.005 .

Yang SP, Zhu XC, Li WC, Zhao HH. Associations between teacher-student relationship and externalizing problem behaviors among Chinese rural adolescent. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1255596. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1255596 .

Poling DV, Van Loan CL, Garwood JD, Zhang S, Riddle D. Enhancing teacher-student relationship quality: a narrative review of school-based interventions. Educ Res Rev. 2022;37:100459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100459 .

Amin R, Iqbal A, Naeem F, Irfan M. Effectiveness of a culturally adapted cognitive behavioural therapy-based guided self-help (CACBT-GSH) intervention to reduce social anxiety and enhance self-esteem in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial from Pakistan. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2020;48(5):503–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1352465820000284 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants who contributed to this study by providing important personal data.

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72004015).

Author information

Xiaoyuan Chu and Alafate Litifu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, No. 10 Xitucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100876, P. R. China

Xiaoyuan Chu, Alafate Litifu, Shihao Ma & Yang Zhou

Institute of International Economy, University of International Business and Economics, No. 10 Huixin East Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, P. R. China

Faculty of Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, No. 5678 Chung Chi Road, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, 999077, P. R. China

School of Education, Renmin University of China, No. 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100872, P. R. China

School of Business, NingboTech University, No.1 South Qianhu Road, Ningbo, 315100, P. R. China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, XC and LL; Methodology, XC and JW; Writing-original draft preparation, XC and AL; Wring-review and editing, XC, AL, and SM; XC, AL, ZZ, SM, YZ, QG, LL, JW contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version. † XC and AL share first authorship.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Wei .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The materials and procedures for this study were approved by the Human Research Committee of the author’s university (Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications). Informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

12889_2024_19725_moesm1_esm.docx.

Additional file 1. English translation of the non-English questionnaires. This file contains the English translations of two non-English questionnaires used in the study: The 7-item “Supervisor-Student Relationship Quality Questionnaire” and the 8-item “Fear of Advisors’ Negative Evaluation Questionnaire”.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chu, X., Litifu, A., Zhu, Z. et al. Supervisor’s neuroticism and problematic Internet use among graduate students: the mediating role of supervisor-student relationship quality and the moderating role of fear of the supervisor’s negative evaluation. BMC Public Health 24 , 2238 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19725-x

Download citation

Received : 04 October 2023

Accepted : 08 August 2024

Published : 17 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19725-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Graduate students

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Request Info

• About Antioch University
• Core Attributes of an Antioch Education
• Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging
• Why Antioch University?
• Common Thread
• Antioch Works for Democracy
• Executive Leadership
• Board of Governors
• Office of the Chancellor

Administrative Resources

• Accreditation
• University Policies

Discover Our Campuses

• Antioch Los Angeles
• Antioch New England
• Antioch Online
• Antioch Santa Barbara
• Antioch Seattle
• Graduate School of Leadership & Change

Academic Focus Areas

• Creative Writing & Communication
• Counseling & Therapy
• Environmental Studies & Sustainability
• Individualized Studies
• Leadership & Management
• Nursing & Health Professions
• Undergraduate Studies

Programs by Type

• Master’s
• Bachelor’s
• Certificates
• Credentials & Endorsements
• Continuing Education

Programs by Modality

• Low-Residency

Programs by Campus

• Los Angeles
• New England
• Santa Barbara

Academic Resources

• Academic Calendars
• Academic Catalog
• Disability Support Services
• Faculty Directory
• Writing Centers
• Admissions Overview
• Unofficial Transcript Evaluation
• Upcoming Admissions Events
• What to Expect

Information for

• International Students
• Transfer & Degree Completion Students
• Veterans & Military-Connected Students

Dates & Deadlines

Tuition & fees.

• GSLC Tuition & Fees
• AULA Tuition & Fees
• AUNE Tuition & Fees
• AUO Tuition & Fees
• AUSB Tuition & Fees
• AUS Tuition & Fees

Financial Aid

• Financial Aid Overview
• Financial Aid Forms
• Scholarships & Grants
• Types of Aid
• Work-Study Opportunities
• Discover GSLC
• Department & Office Directory
• The Antiochian Leader (Newsletter)
• Discover AULA
• Department & Office Directory
• Location & Contact Info
• Discover AUNE
• Location & Contact Info
• Discover AU Online
• Online Learning @AU
• Discover AUSB
• Location & Contact Information
• Discover AUS
• Department and Office Directory
• Advancement
• Grants and Foundation Relations
• Information Technology
• Institutional Effectiveness
• Strategic Partnerships
• Student Accounts
• Academic Assessment
• Consumer Information
• Licensure Information
• Resource List
• Student Policies
• Alumni Magazine
• Chancellor’s Communications
• Common Thread (University News)
• Event Calendar

Core Faculty, (PhD) Counselor Education & Supervision Low Residency Program (remote)

• Seattle, WA
• Posted 6 days ago

Antioch University Seattle

Position Title: Core Faculty Classification: Faculty, Full-time Reports to: Chair, Counselor Education & Supervision (CES) Low Residency Program Location: Remote, with the ability to travel to campuses and other locations Compensation: Base $68,162.50, WA $73,343.88, CA 74,978.75 Start Date: October 2024

Antioch University Graduate School of Counseling, Psychology, and Therapy invites applications for a full-time Core Faculty member to join our progressive team in our PhD in Counselor Education and Supervision program. The low residential CES department at AUS is an accredited program (CACREP) encouraging a multicultural counselor identity appreciating diversity and human growth in context to social dynamics while also advocating for community justice, equity, and civil discourse. This is concurrent with an emphasis on systemic leadership, and supervisory skills needed to assist with organizational change and transformation. Within a cohort model, doctoral students are provided early experiential learning within a continuous integration of theory and practice as well as frequent opportunities for students to know and experience the curricular delivery of a counselor education program. The mission of Antioch University is to provide learner-centered education to empower students with the knowledge and skills to lead meaningful lives and to advance social, economic, racial, and environmental justice. Antioch aspires to be a leading university offering learners and communities  transformative education in a global context that fosters innovation and inspires social action.

In alignment with Antioch’s mission, the PhD CDS program at Antioch is committed to experiential learning, social justice, extensive clinical training, scholarship, and the use of creative, progressive and applied approaches. The Core faculty is responsible to maintain work in all four areas of faculty engagement at Antioch University (student learning, scholarship, institutional citizenship and service). This position will have a primary focus on both teaching (24 quarter credit hours) and student research support. As a doctoral level faculty member, this individual is expected to be a leader in their field with an appropriate publication and presentation record and a working knowledge of alternative delivery models including technology-mediated/low-residency education.

Position Overview  The position has responsibilities that include:

• Direct instruction of 24 quarter credit hours equal to 18 semester credit hours per academic year
• Engaging in student advising
• Support of student research through dissertation committee involvement
• Support of the CES program as related to the five foundational principles: Quality and Continuous Improvement with a focus on Student Assessment and Program
• Accreditation;  Research and Scholarship; Social Justice and Anti-Racism; Professional Agency; Growth and Expansion.
• Meeting university expectations in scholarship, service, and institutional citizenship
• Engaging in program, department, campus, and school/university citizenship
• Engaging in ongoing department and program initiatives, particularly related to improvements in pedagogy and student engagement
• Attending program residencies three times per year

QUALIFICATIONS:  The PhD Core Faculty in the CES Program must hold:

• An earned doctoral degree in Counselor Education and Supervision, CACREP/CACREP Aligned
• Core Faculty designation/eligible within the Counseling Department
• 4+ years successful teaching history at graduate level in counselor education
• Licensed as LMHC in State of Washington or equal licensing in another state or national counseling credential
• Approved Supervisor credential (preferred).
• Strong record of administrative/leadership experience in higher education.
• A reflective commitment to the training and supervision of multiculturally responsive and socially justice oriented CES doctoral trainees
• A clear history of service to the counseling profession and an interest in leadership
• A history of publication and presentation work at regional, national, and international levels
• Strong record of leadership/coordination role within a Counseling Department
• Strong record of teaching at the graduate level—a proven history of high marks in student evaluations (made available to the committee)
• Optimistic, collaborative, and proactive leadership skills
• Strong record of both online and on the ground teaching formats
• Interest in the development of social justice leaders and agents of community dialogue and change.
• Skilled in demonstration-based teaching (faculty need to teach using real/live demonstration) and experiential learning
• Excellent organizational and time-management skills with the ability to oversee various operational processes within the department at one time
• Clear developmental skills with a focus on providing new opportunities for students, faculty and staff to excel.
• Excellent oral and written communication skills—an additional interest in grant writing is preferred
• Ability to be flexible and working in an environment of expansion and change

The University Antioch University is a multi-campus, coast–to-coast institution of higher learning that provides  learner-centered education to empower students with the knowledge and skills to lead  meaningful lives and to advance social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

Benefits Voluntary Health, dental and vision plan and flexible spending account options; employer retirement plan contribution of 6%; voluntary salary deduction to a pre-tax or post-tax retirement account; employer paid life insurance and short term disability; voluntary supplemental life insurance, long-term disability, accidental death/dismemberment, critical illness, and accident coverage plans; 12 days per year sick leave (carry-over up to 65 days); tuition remission for employees and dependents at Antioch University campuses; and employee paid options with AFLAC, LegalShield, and Liberty Mutual.

Application Instructions To apply, please include a letter of application, curriculum vitae, a statement of your teaching philosophy, and a list of three current references and contact information. For further specifics about the program or position, please contact the Chair, Shawn Patrick ( [email protected] ) and/or the Counseling Divisional Dean, Cathy Lounsbury ( [email protected] ).

Review of applicants will begin immediately. Position is open until filled with a flexible start date. To apply, click here .

Coalition for the Common Good (CCG) EEO Statement The Coalition for the Common Good provides equal employment opportunity to all employees and applicants and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, national origin, disability status, genetics, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic or class protected by federal, state or local laws in matters affecting employment or in providing access to programs. This policy applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including recruitment, hiring, placement, promotion, termination, layoff, recall, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation, benefits, and training. The CCG complies with all state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Inquiries should be addressed to the Office of Human Resources or the Office of the General Counsel.

NOTE:  The successful candidate for this position will be subject to a pre-employment background check.

This position is included in the bargaining unit of Antioch University faculty that is represented by SEIU Local 925.  Terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit positions are subject to change based on collective bargaining.

Back to Job Listings

• Digital Library

Print

Background This PhD supervision training is initiated by the Ethiopian SuperStars project. The Ethiopian Superstars is an international training program that involves 7 Ethiopian universities (Addis Ababa University, Ambo University, Arba Minch University, Bahir Dar University, Hawassa University, Jimma University and Mekelle University). The project is coordinated by Jimma University and Ghent University, is financially supported by VLIR-UOS (www.vliruos.be) and runs from September 2023 to August 2026. The overall vison of Ethiopian SuperStars project is strengthening the advisory and coaching skills of academic staff at Ethiopian higher education institutions. To realize this, Ethiopian SuperStars works towards the following four milestones:  Application_Formfor Ethiopian SuperStars 1

• Milestone 1: Train 210 academic staff on PhD supervision (30 at each university) • Milestone 2: Customize the training to an Ethiopian context • Milestone 3: Facilitate integration of training in Ethiopian universities

Quick Links

• AMU Intranet
• Academic Calendar
• Finance & Budget Transparency

Corporate Communication P.O. Box 21 Arba Minch University

Tel: +251-46881-4986 Fax: +251-46881-0820/0279 E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

• Alumni Registration
• Agriculture
• Business & Economics
• Medicine and Health Sciences
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences & Humanities

Copyright © 2021 Arba Minch University .

• Campus Guide

Sara Chadwick – Information for Prospective Graduate Students

FAQs for Prospective PhD Students Interested in Working with Dr. Sara Chadwick  

What type of research will a PhD student learn to conduct under Dr. Chadwick ’s supervision? 

As a PhD student under my supervision, you will be trained in how to conduct research as a Feminist Psychologist . A feminist psychologist is a social scientist who conducts psychological research on feminist topics, using feminist methodologies. In my lab, this involves using surveys, interviews, focus groups, experiments, and sometimes other scientific approaches to gather empirical data from human participants. As such, in my lab, you will learn to ask meaningful research questions, design a scientific study to answer your questions, gather data from participants, analyze the data, and write research papers for publication in scientific journals.

If you are not sure what this looks like, please review the following research study I conducted on orgasm coercion .

Ask yourself: would you like to learn to conduct a research study like that? Would you like to spend a large portion of your time analyzing data and writing papers like that one? If the answer is yes, then great! Please continue reading. If the answer is no and/or you thought doing a PhD involved something else, that’s okay! There are many different types of research approaches out there, especially in Gender & Women’s Studies Departments. You should pursue another supervisor who does work that is more similar to what you are interested in doing.

What type of classes will a PhD student take under Dr. Chadwick ’s supervision? 

In addition to hands-on research experience, you will complete rigorous coursework in Psychology AND Gender & Women’s Studies, regardless of whether you come to UW-Madison through the Psychology or Gender & Women’s Studies PhD program. Your training will include classes such as Feminist Theory, Social Psychology Theory, Research Methods, Grant Writing, Advanced Statistics, and sometimes Computer Programming. Some of these courses are very theory-heavy and humanities-based. Some are highly scientific and/or mathematical. All are essential to becoming an excellent, highly trained researcher in feminist psychology. As such, you should be prepared to engage in learning across both fields. It is okay if you feel that you are weaker in some of the above listed subjects than others as long as you are willing to engage with all of them in an effort to strengthen your interdisciplinary skills.

After reading the above, are you are still interested in doing a PhD with Dr. Chadwick ? If yes, great! Please keep reading! 

What are the options for doing a PhD with Dr. Chadwick ? 

At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, there are a few options for completing a PhD with me.

Option 1.  The first option is that you can do a single-major (traditional) PhD through the Psychology PhD Program or through the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD Program. Through the Gender & Women’s Studies Program, you would be able to choose a concentration in either Psychology or Health. Note, if you are interesting in attending through the Psychology program, I only accept students who apply to the SOCIAL Psychology area. I am not a clinical psychologist and will not accept students who apply to work with me through Clinical Psychology.

Here is a link to the Psychology PhD program information: https://psych.wisc.edu/graduate-program/

Here is a link to the Gender and Women’s Studies PhD information: https://gws.wisc.edu/graduate/phd-program-in-gender-and-womens-studies/

Option 2. The second option is applying to complete a joint PhD in Gender & Women’s Studies and Psychology. This is a new option that I have developed here at UW-Madison, so if you would like to pursue this, it is imperative that you let me know in advance so that I can determine whether this option makes sense for your goals. Of note, to pursue this option you will be required to submit SEPARATE applications to both the Psychology and the GWS PhD programs.

What is the difference between the Psychology PhD Program or the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD Program? 

Importantly, there are a few things to consider when deciding which program is the best fit for you. But first, you should know that I will train you in the same way regardless of which PhD program you are accepted through.  I.e., you will be trained as a feminist psychologist doing the type of social science research that I do, with links to both the Social Psychology area and Gender & Women’s Studies here at UW-Madison. The difference will primarily be where your “home” department lies and which courses are required. However, I believe you will take many of the same courses regardless considering the overlap in the programs.

The other difference would be your future career prospects. One or the other might be better depending on what your future goals are. If you are interested in becoming a professor in a Psychology Department, the Psychology PhD might give you a better shot. But at the same time, doing feminist psychology is often considered to be non-traditional for most Psychology departments, and it is likely that you will end up in a different type of department anyway (i.e., one that values the quality of your work and/or your interdisciplinary focus more so than the name on your PhD). For example, after completing my PhD in Psychology and Women’s and Gender Studies, I was given opportunities to work in a Human and Family Development Department, an interdisciplinary Sexuality Studies Department, a Violence Against Women research group, Population and Public Health Departments, and a Gender & Women’s Studies Department. Traditional Psychology Departments were less interested.

With that said, the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD with a concentration in either Psychology or Health would make you more competitive for many interdisciplinary positions, and certainly for programs looking for feminist-oriented researchers. It might, however, make you even less competitive for a traditional Psychology department.

There is also the possibility that you are not interested in being a professor at all! That is totally fine, too! If you are interested in pursuing a career in industry, a PhD in either area could work for you, since it will be more so about the research skills that you develop. In the end, it is up to you which PhD program you apply to.

Do I have a better chance of getting into the Psychology PhD program or the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD program?

Both the Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies Programs are HIGHLY competitive. Each department can get hundreds of applications each year and we may only accept a few students. I cannot guarantee your acceptance to either program, regardless of how great of a candidate you are. Acceptance depends on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the competitiveness of your application, your fit for the program, your fit in my research lab, the types of students the department is looking for each year, and my availability and funding opportunities.

With that said, your chance on getting into the Psychology PhD program vs. the Gender & Women’s Studies program may vary from year to year. I am most likely to accept a student through the Gender & Women’s Studies program. I *might* be able to accept a student through the Psychology program. You are welcome to apply to either or both.

What is Dr. Chadwick looking for in a PhD student? 

I am looking for PhD students who would like to be trained as feminist psychologists, who have research interests that overlap with mine, and who are likely to succeed in a PhD program that integrates Psychology and Gender and Women’s Studies. As such, your application and any initial communications with me should clearly state and provide evidence that:

1.        You would like to complete a PhD with me because you would like to be trained as a feminist psychologist.  I.e., it is important that you know and understand that doing this program with me as your supervisor means spending ~5 years learning to do scientific research that integrates feminist and psychological theories and methodologies. In other words, this is much like a job application. You should let me know that you understand what the job title is and that you are indeed interested in doing what the job entails. If I am not sure that you understand what it means to do a PhD with me, it is unlikely that I will support your application.

2.        Your research interests overlap with mine. I am currently interested in studying gray-area sexual coercion, orgasm coercion, gender roles, the heteronormativity theory of sexual desire, health outcomes, and often gender/sexual minority populations. If you do a PhD with me, you will likely start by helping me with my research studies as you develop research skills, so it is important that you are interested in and willing to do this work. Eventually, you will develop your own ideas, and it is okay if they are tangential to mine. But, I will likely require that they be somewhat related so that I can best advise you and we can engage in a mutually beneficial research partnership.  Of note, it is not enough just to say you are interested in the above topics. To be as competitive as possible, you should clarify: What exactly interests you about these topics? What research questions might you ask that are related to these topics? What ideas do you have for expanding upon some of the studies I have done?

Please note that I have published some work on topics that I am no longer pursuing. For example, I am not planning to conduct additional research on pornography or hormones and am unlikely to take a student who is primarily interested in these subjects.

3.        You are likely to succeed at completing a social science PhD that involves Psychology and Gender and Women’s Studies. The best way to show that you are likely to succeed is to demonstrate how your previous experience has well-prepared you to do this PhD. For example, you should have an undergraduate major and/or a Master’s level degree (though a Master’s degree is not required) in Psychology or a closely related social science (that you could easily argue has prepared you to do psychological research).

 You should also have some experience working in a social science lab as a research assistant (volunteer or paid) and/or lab coordinator. This ensures that you have familiarity with the scientific method, the research process, and some basic research skills. Additionally, having written a senior thesis in Psychology, being a first or co-author on a manuscript, and/or having presented or been accepted to present at a conference will make you especially competitive. Note that if you have never worked in a research lab before or done any type of social science research, I am not likely to accept you. If this is the case for you, I recommend that you contact labs near you and try to obtain a volunteer or research assistant position and then re-applying to PhD programs once you have at least 1-2 years of experience.

It is also a benefit if you can demonstrate some experience with data collection and analyses. I am a mixed method researcher, thus I am interested in students who have experience developing surveys, coding data, and/or conducting interviews or focus groups. Quantitative and/or qualitative experience with software such as SPSS, R, NVivo, Stata, MPlus is a plus.

In addition to the requirements above, it is a benefit that you have some experience with Gender and Women’s Studies topics. It is ideal if you have taken relevant classes or have a relevant major or minor. It may also be acceptable if you are just deeply invested in social justice topics, and have demonstrated experience with this (for example, you wrote undergrad papers that involved a feminist or gendered lens, you have relevant volunteer or job experiences, you have relevant lived/personal community experiences, etc.).

Finally, you should have strong letters of recommendation from professors you have studied with or worked with in the past. Ideally, you will have at least one professor who can attest to your previous research experience and the skills that you can bring to the table as a part of the PhD program.

Ok, everything above sounds good! What should you do next? 

If after reading all of the above, you are still confident that you would like to apply to either the Psychology or Gender & Women’s Studies PhD Program with me as your primary supervisor, then great! I’m thrilled that you are interested in working with me!

The next step is to email me to communicate that you are still interested and that you have read and understood everything in this document. If you already emailed me with some of this information, then great, you are on the right track! However, it is likely you did not include information on everything, and it would probably be helpful for me to know more.

As such, in your email, please clarify the following:

• That you understand what a feminist psychologist is/does and that you would like to get a PhD with me because you are interested in becoming a feminist psychologist.
• That you are committed to taking Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies courses, regardless of whether you work with me through the Psychology or Gender & Women’s Studies program.
• Which program you are planning to apply to.
• Your research interests and how they overlap with mine.
• A brief description of your qualifications and previous research experience.
• An updated CV.

Note, sending me this information will allow me to best evaluate your fit for working with me. Due to a high volume of interest, I may not be able to respond to you, but be assured that I have read your email and am taking note of potentially strong applications. Again, I cannot guarantee anyone’s acceptance into either program, but I may be able to advocate for students I think are especially competitive. With that said, you do not HAVE to email me the requested information, but doing so will increase the chance that I will agree to become your supervisor upon acceptance.

Finally, the last step is to complete the official application through the UW-Madison website!  Please make sure to submit your strongest materials and to really make your writing and stated interests shine! I look forward to potentially working with you!

Dr. Sara B. Chadwick

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Junior researchers ‘cited more if PhD supervisor is well known’

Success of those mentored by highly regarded scholars suggests ‘chaperone effect’ is increasingly important, finds study.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Early career researchers are much more likely to see their work cited if their PhD supervisors are well-known academics, according to a major study that suggests scholarly success is increasingly dependent on the status of one’s mentor.

In a paper published in the Royal Society journal  Interface  on 14 August, researchers survey the “academic genealogy” of more than 300,000 academics who published nearly 10 million papers to work out if the PhD graduates of highly cited authors are more widely cited than those whose mentors had a lower academic reputation – a phenomenon that has often been attributed to the “chaperone effect”.

A positive correlation – which the paper labelled the “academic Great Gatsby Curve” in reference to the term used in social sciences to describe the persistence of intergenerational income inequality – was observed in nearly all 22 disciplines analysed but was strongest in philosophy, mathematics and linguistics.

Political science, computing and anthropology also have high levels of “impact inequality”, states the paper, with the “most egalitarian citation distribution” found in experimental psychology, microbiology and evolutionary biology.

The “impact persistence” between PhD mentors and mentees was slightly higher if the supervisor was female, the researchers note, suggesting that this is “possibly owing to female mentors having a lasting positive impact on mentees or providing career development facilitation to a larger extent than male mentors”.

On the growing importance of having a well-known “academic parent”, the study suggests that “academia has become less open and more stratified over time, as newer protégé cohorts are characterised by lower intergenerational mobility than their predecessors”.

While the paper, which examines whether the citations gained by scholars in the five years after their PhD aligned with the citation profile of supervisors, accepts that “more successful mentors may have the privilege of being more selective in their choice of mentees, and vice versa, leading to a positive correlation between their impact”, it also argues that PhD students of well-known scholars are able to benefit from more networking opportunities.

“The transfer of academic status is instead grounded upon the inheritance of intangibles such as knowledge and visibility,” it says.

Given how “academic impact – as quantified by citations – is to some extent inherited”, the authors advise that “citation-based bibliometric indicators should be handled with care when used to assess the performance of academics”.

[email protected]

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

Obsession with elites won’t fix inequality

Addressing extreme social stratification is a responsibility of all universities. But focusing excessively on action at the top of the pile is a mistake

Embed impact in PhD training from day one, says UCL doctoral head

Head of UK’s biggest PhD school says promoting impact in doctoral studies would make students more employable and research more visible

PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

Ever-expanding numbers of doctoral students may suit universities, but one’s twenties should be a time for broad learning and professional development, not for burying oneself in detailed research, says Lincoln Allison

How ‘will you be my supervisor’ emails control entry to PhD study

Late responses to PhD applicant enquiries and lack of signposting might contribute to poor ethnic minority representation at doctoral level, researchers say

Related universities

You might also like.

Will the funding crisis confine UK research to elite universities?

At a time of increasing financial constraint, jobs are being shed even in UK departments that ride high in the Research Excellence Framework, while time allocations for research are being cut. Can a loss-making activity like research survive outside traditional institutions, asks Jack Grove 

UK research’s islands of excellence need flood defences

As a loss-maker, research is under pressure as fears of insolvency rise. But universities must do all they can to shore up a key element of their impact 

Average master’s fee higher than postgraduate loan for first time

While value of government-backed loan has increased by 21 per cent since 2017-18, average fees have soared by 43 per cent

Peer review will only do its job if referees are named and rated

We need a mechanism whereby academics can build a public reputation as referees and receive career benefits for doing so, says Randy Robertson

Featured jobs

Mental Health & Wellness - Practicum & Internships

Forms and resources.

• Mental Health & Wellness Field Placement Handbook pdf
• Practicum and Internship Form
• Supervision Agreement Form pdf : Students are required to print this supervision agreement form and review it with their site supervisor. After the student and site supervisor have reviewed and signed the supervision agreement form, they must return it to the faculty supervisor for review. This will need to be completed prior to the initial start date of the practicum and internship courses the student is enrolled in. Final submission of the form will need to be to the program coordinator.

Student Orientation Video

Field placement student orientation video from HU VideoWorks on Vimeo .

Contact Information

Join Our Community

At Harding University, you'll have the opportunity to be transformed academically, relationally and spiritually so you're prepared to change the world.

• Directories

Explore Positions at Mines

Faculty & Staff

All faculty positions are employees of the school, are governed by Colorado School of Mines policies and procedures, and are exempted from the State Personnel System.   State residency is not required for application.

Classified Positions

Classified employees are part of the Colorado State Personnel System and are governed by State Personnel Board Rules and Procedures and the Partnership Agreement.  To apply for positions within the Classified personnel system, you must be a current resident of the State of Colorado.

Student Hiring

Not all jobs require a Colorado or Federal work-study award. Locate more information about undergraduate student employment on the Financial Aid site. Graduate students can find information about employment opportunities on the Graduate Student Employment site.