phd supervisor meaning

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

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

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

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

PhD placement record

• Funding for postgraduate students
• Student information overview
• Timetable overview
• Primary source seminars
• Research methods seminars
• Writing support seminars
• Dissertation seminars
• BBS Part II overview
• Early Medicine
• Modern Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
• Philosophy of Science and Medicine
• Ethics of Medicine
• Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine
• Part III and MPhil
• Single-paper options
• Part IB students' guide overview
• About the course
• Supervisions
• Libraries and readings
• Scheme of examination
• Part II students' guide overview
• Primary sources
• Dissertation
• Key dates and deadlines
• Advice overview
• Examination advice
• Learning strategies and exam skills
• Advice from students
• Part III students' guide overview
• Essays and dissertation
• Subject areas
• MPhil students' guide overview
• Essays and dissertation overview
• How to choose the topic of your essays and dissertation
• PhD students' guide overview
• Welcome to new PhDs
• Registration exercise and annual reviews
• Your supervisor and advisor
• Progress log
• Intermission and working away from Cambridge
• The PhD thesis
• Submitting your thesis
• Examination
• News and events overview
• Seminars and reading groups overview
• Departmental Seminars
• Coffee with Scientists
• Cabinet of Natural History overview
• Publications

History of Medicine

• Purpose and Progress in Science
• The Anthropocene
• Measurement Reading Group
• Teaching Global HPSTM
• Pragmatism Reading Group
• History of Science and Medicine in Southeast Asia
• Atmospheric Humanities Reading Group
• Science Fiction & HPS Reading Group
• Values in Science Reading Group
• Cambridge Reading Group on Reproduction
• HPS Workshop
• Postgraduate Seminars overview
• Images of Science
• Language Groups overview
• Latin Therapy overview
• Bibliography of Latin language resources
• Fun with Latin
• Archive overview
• Easter Term 2024
• Lent Term 2024
• Michaelmas Term 2023
• Easter Term 2023
• Lent Term 2023
• Michaelmas Term 2022
• Easter Term 2022
• Lent Term 2022
• Michaelmas Term 2021
• Easter Term 2021
• Lent Term 2021
• Michaelmas Term 2020
• Easter Term 2020
• Lent Term 2020
• Michaelmas Term 2019
• Easter Term 2019
• Lent Term 2019
• Michaelmas Term 2018
• Easter Term 2018
• Lent Term 2018
• Michaelmas Term 2017
• Easter Term 2017
• Lent Term 2017
• Michaelmas Term 2016
• Easter Term 2016
• Lent Term 2016
• Michaelmas Term 2015
• Postgraduate and postdoc training overview
• Induction sessions
• Academic skills and career development
• Print & Material Sources
• Other events and resources
• Part IB students' guide
• Part II students' guide
• Part III students' guide
• MPhil students' guide

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

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

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

Email search

Privacy and cookie policies

Study History and Philosophy of Science

Undergraduate study

Postgraduate study

Library and Museum

Whipple Library

Whipple Museum

Museum Collections Portal

Research projects

Philosophy of Science

© 2024 University of Cambridge

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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.17(9); 2021 Sep

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

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

Catherine Bannon

J. scott p. mccain, introduction.

The PhD beckons. You thought long and hard about why you want to do it, you understand the sacrifices and commitments it entails, and you have decided that it is the right thing for you. Congratulations! Undertaking a doctoral degree can be an extremely rewarding experience, greatly enhancing your personal, intellectual, and professional development. If you are still on the fence about whether or not you want to pursue a PhD, see [ 1 , 2 ] and others to help you decide.

As a PhD student in the making, you will have many important decisions to consider. Several of them will depend on your chosen discipline and research topic, the institution you want to attend, and even the country where you will undertake your degree. However, one of the earliest and most critical decisions you will need to make transcends most other decisions: choosing your PhD thesis supervisor. Your PhD supervisor will strongly influence the success and quality of your degree as well as your general well-being throughout the program. It is therefore vital to choose the right supervisor for you. A wrong choice or poor fit can be disastrous on both a personal and professional levels—something you obviously want to avoid. Unfortunately, however, most PhD students go through the process of choosing a supervisor only once and thus do not get the opportunity to learn from previous experiences. Additionally, many prospective PhD students do not have access to resources and proper guidance to rely on when making important academic decisions such as those involved in choosing a PhD supervisor.

In this short guide, we—a group of PhD students with varied backgrounds, research disciplines, and academic journeys—share our collective experiences with choosing our own PhD supervisors. We provide tips and advice to help prospective students in various disciplines, including computational biology, in their quest to find a suitable PhD supervisor. Despite procedural differences across countries, institutions, and programs, the following rules and discussions should remain helpful for guiding one’s approach to selecting their future PhD supervisor. These guidelines mostly address how to evaluate a potential PhD supervisor and do not include details on how you might find a supervisor. In brief, you can find a supervisor anywhere: seminars, a class you were taught, internet search of interesting research topics, departmental pages, etc. After reading about a group’s research and convincing yourself it seems interesting, get in touch! Make sure to craft an e-mail carefully, demonstrating you have thought about their research and what you might do in their group. After finding one or several supervisors of interest, we hope that the rules bellow will help you choose the right supervisor for you.

Rule 1: Align research interests

You need to make sure that a prospective supervisor studies, or at the very least, has an interest in what you want to study. A good starting point would be to browse their personal and research group websites (though those are often outdated), their publication profile, and their students’ theses, if possible. Keep in mind that the publication process can be slow, so recent publications may not necessarily reflect current research in that group. Pay special attention to publications where the supervisor is senior author—in life sciences, their name would typically be last. This would help you construct a mental map of where the group interests are going, in addition to where they have been.

Be proactive about pursuing your research interests, but also flexible: Your dream research topic might not currently be conducted in a particular group, but perhaps the supervisor is open to exploring new ideas and research avenues with you. Check that the group or institution of interest has the facilities and resources appropriate for your research, and/or be prepared to establish collaborations to access those resources elsewhere. Make sure you like not only the research topic, but also the “grunt work” it requires, as a topic you find interesting may not be suitable for you in terms of day-to-day work. You can look at the “Methods” sections of published papers to get a sense for what this is like—for example, if you do not like resolving cryptic error messages, programming is probably not for you, and you might want to consider a wet lab–based project. Lastly, any research can be made interesting, and interests change. Perhaps your favorite topic today is difficult to work with now, and you might cut your teeth on a different project.

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

Discussing your plans with experienced and trustworthy people is a great way to learn more about the reputation of potential supervisors, their research group dynamics, and exciting projects in your field of interest. Your current supervisor, if you have one, could be aware of position openings that are compatible with your interests and time frame and is likely to know talented supervisors with good reputations in their fields. Professors you admire, reliable student advisors, and colleagues might also know your prospective supervisor on various professional or personal levels and could have additional insight about working with them. Listen carefully to what these trusted sources have to say, as they can provide a wealth of insider information (e.g., personality, reputation, interpersonal relationships, and supervisory styles) that might not be readily accessible to you.

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

A considerable portion of PhD students feel that their program does not meet original expectations [ 3 ]. To avoid being part of this group, we stress the importance of aligning your expectations with the supervisor’s expectations before joining a research group or PhD program. Also, remember that one person’s dream supervisor can be another’s worst nightmare and vice versa—it is about a good fit for you. Identifying what a “good fit” looks like requires a serious self-appraisal of your goals (see Rule 1 ), working style (see Rule 5 ), and what you expect in a mentor (see Rule 4 ). One way to conduct this self-appraisal is to work in a research lab to get experiences similar to a PhD student (if this is possible).

Money!—Many people have been conditioned to avoid the subject of finances at all costs, but setting financial expectations early is crucial for maintaining your well-being inside and outside the lab. Inside the lab, funding will provide chemicals and equipment required for you to do cool research. It is also important to know if there will be sufficient funding for your potential projects to be completed. Outside the lab, you deserve to get paid a reasonable, livable stipend. What is the minimum required take-home stipend, or does that even exist at the institution you are interested in? Are there hard cutoffs for funding once your time runs out, or does the institution have support for students who take longer than anticipated? If the supervisor supplies the funding, do they end up cutting off students when funds run low, or do they have contingency plans? ( Fig 1 ).

Professional development opportunities—A key aspect of graduate school training is professional development. In some research groups, it is normal for PhD students to mentor undergraduate students or take a semester to work in industry to get more diverse experiences. Other research groups have clear links with government entities, which is helpful for going into policy or government-based research. These opportunities (and others) are critical for your career and next steps. What are the career development opportunities and expectations of a potential supervisor? Is a potential supervisor happy to send students to workshops to learn new skills? Are they supportive of public outreach activities? If you are looking at joining a newer group, these sorts of questions will have to be part of the larger set of conversations about expectations. Ask: “What sort of professional development opportunities are there at the institution?”

Publications—Some PhD programs have minimum requirements for finishing a thesis (i.e., you must publish a certain number of papers prior to defending), while other programs leave it up to the student and supervisor to decide on this. A simple and important topic to discuss is: How many publications are expected from your PhD and when will you publish them? If you are keen to publish in high-impact journals, does your prospective supervisor share that aim? (Although question why you are so keen to do so, see the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment ( www.sfdora.org ) to learn about the pitfalls of journal impact factor.)

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

Sooner or later, you will get to meet and interview with a prospective PhD supervisor. This should go both ways: Interview them just as much as they are interviewing you. Prepare questions and pay close attention to how they respond. For example, ask them about their “lab culture,” research interests (especially for the future/long term), and what they are looking for in a graduate student. Do you feel like you need to “put on an act” to go along with the supervisor (beyond just the standard interview mode)? Represent yourself, and not the person you think they are looking for. All of us will have some interviews go badly. Remember that discovering a poor fit during the interview has way fewer consequences than the incompatibility that could arise once you have committed to a position.

To come up with good questions for the prospective supervisor, first ask yourself questions. What are you looking for in a mentor? People differ in their optimal levels of supervision, and there is nothing wrong with wanting more or less than your peers. How much career guidance do you expect and does the potential supervisor respect your interests, particularly if your long-term goals do not include academia? What kind of student might not thrive in this research group?

Treat the PhD position like a partnership: What do you seek to get out of it? Keep in mind that a large portion of research is conducted by PhD students [ 4 ], so you are also an asset. Your supervisor will provide guidance, but the PhD is your work. Make sure you and your mentor are on the same page before committing to what is fundamentally a professional contract akin to an apprenticeship (see “ Rule 3 ”).

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

Sharing interests with a supervisor does not necessarily guarantee you would work well together, and just because you enjoyed a course by a certain professor does not mean they are the right PhD supervisor for you. Make sure your expectations for work and work–life approaches are compatible. Do you thrive on structure, or do you need freedom to proceed at your own pace? Do they expect you to be in the lab from 6:00 AM to midnight on a regular basis (red flag!)? Are they comfortable with you working from home when you can? Are they around the lab enough for it to work for you? Are they supportive of alternative work hours if you have other obligations (e.g., childcare, other employment, extracurriculars)? How is the group itself organized? Is there a lab manager or are the logistics shared (fairly?) between the group members? Discuss this before you commit!

Two key attributes of a research group are the supervisor’s career stage and number of people in the group. A supervisor in a later career stage may have more established research connections and protocols. An earlier career stage supervisor comes with more opportunities to shape the research direction of the lab, but less access to academic political power and less certainty in what their supervision style will be (even to themselves). Joining new research groups provides a great opportunity to learn how to build a lab if you are considering that career path but may take away time and energy from your thesis project. Similarly, be aware of pros and cons of different lab sizes. While big labs provide more opportunity for collaborations and learning from fellow lab members, their supervisors generally have less time available for each trainee. Smaller labs tend to have better access to the supervisor but may be more isolating [ 5 , 6 ]. Also note that large research groups tend to be better for developing extant research topics further, while small groups can conduct more disruptive research [ 7 ].

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

Meeting with current students is one of the most important steps prior to joining a lab. Current students will give you the most direct and complete sense of what working with a certain supervisor is actually like. They can also give you a valuable sense of departmental culture and nonacademic life. You could also ask to meet with other students in the department to get a broader sense of the latter. However, if current students are not happy with their current supervisor, they are unlikely to tell you directly. Try to ask specific questions: “How often do you meet with your supervisor?”, “What are the typical turnaround times for a paper draft?”, “How would you describe the lab culture?”, “How does your supervisor react to mistakes or unexpected results?”, “How does your supervisor react to interruptions to research from, e.g., personal life?”, and yes, even “What would you say is the biggest weakness of your supervisor?”

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

While not always possible, meeting with past students can be very informative. Past students give you information on career outcomes (i.e., what are they doing now?) and can provide insight into what the lab was like when they were in it. Previous students will provide a unique perspective because they have gone through the entire process, from start to finish—and, in some cases, no longer feel obligated to speak well of their now former supervisor. It can also be helpful to look at previous students’ experiences by reading the acknowledgement section in their theses.

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

Your PhD supervisor is only one—albeit large—piece of your PhD puzzle. It is therefore essential to consider your PhD experience as whole when deciding on a supervisor. One important aspect to contemplate is your mental health. Graduate students have disproportionately higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to the general population [ 8 ], so your mental health will be tested greatly throughout your PhD experience. We suggest taking the time to reflect on what factors would enable you to do your best work while maintaining a healthy work–life balance. Does your happiness depend on surfing regularly? Check out coastal areas. Do you despise being cold? Consider being closer to the equator. Do you have a deep-rooted phobia of koalas? Maybe avoid Australia. Consider these potentially even more important questions like: Do you want to be close to your friends and family? Will there be adequate childcare support? Are you comfortable with studying abroad? How does the potential university treat international or underrepresented students? When thinking about your next steps, keep in mind that although obtaining your PhD will come with many challenges, you will be at your most productive when you are well rested, financially stable, nourished, and enjoying your experience.

Rule 9: Trust your gut

You have made it to our most “hand-wavy” rule! As academics, we understand the desire for quantifiable data and some sort of statistic to make logical decisions. If this is more your style, consider every interaction with a prospective supervisor, from the first e-mail onwards, as a piece of data.

However, there is considerable value in trusting gut instincts. One way to trust your gut is to listen to your internal dialogue while making your decision on a PhD supervisor. For example, if your internal dialogue includes such phrases as “it will be different for me,” “I’ll just put my head down and work hard,” or “maybe their students were exaggerating,” you might want to proceed with caution. If you are saying “Wow! How are they so kind and intelligent?” or “I cannot wait to start!”, then you might have found a winner ( Fig 2 ).

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

The last piece of advice we give you is to do this lengthy process all over again. Comparing your options is a key step during the search for a PhD supervisor. By screening multiple different groups, you ultimately learn more about what red flags to look for, compatible work styles, your personal expectations, and group atmospheres. Repeat this entire process with another supervisor, another university, or even another country. We suggest you reject the notion that you would be “wasting someone’s time.” You deserve to take your time and inform yourself to choose a PhD supervisor wisely. The time and energy invested in a “failed” supervisor search would still be far less than what is consumed by a bad PhD experience ( Fig 3 ).

The more supervisors your interview and the more advice you get from peers, the more apparent these red flags will become.

Conclusions

Pursuing a PhD can be an extremely rewarding endeavor and a time of immense personal growth. The relationship you have with your PhD supervisor can make or break an entire experience, so make this choice carefully. Above, we have outlined some key points to think about while making this decision. Clarifying your own expectations is a particularly important step, as conflicts can arise when there are expectation mismatches. In outlining these topics, we hope to share pieces of advice that sometimes require “insider” knowledge and experience.

After thoroughly evaluating your options, go ahead and tackle the PhD! In our own experiences, carefully choosing a supervisor has led to relationships that morph from mentor to mentee into a collaborative partnership where we can pose new questions and construct novel approaches to answer them. Science is hard enough by itself. If you choose your supervisor well and end up developing a positive relationship with them and their group, you will be better suited for sound and enjoyable science.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

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.

This post explains the difference between the journal paper status of In Review and Under Review.

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

In the UK, a dissertation, usually around 20,000 words is written by undergraduate and Master’s students, whilst a thesis, around 80,000 words, is written as part of a PhD.

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

Browse PhDs Now

Considering whether to do an MBA or a PhD? If so, find out what their differences are, and more importantly, which one is better suited for you.

The term rationale of research means the reason for performing the research study in question.

Nina’s in the first year of her PhD in the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath. Her project is focused on furthering our understanding of fatigue within adolescent depression.

Michele is a first-year PhD candidate in a double degree program between the University of Girona (Spain) & Technical University Munich (Germany). His research has the aim of innovating water treatment technologies.

Join Thousands of Students

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

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

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

View all partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheap labour

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

The “ghost supervisor”

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

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

Collateral damage

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

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

Creepy crawlers

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

Captivate and con

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

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

Colleague in training

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

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

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

Senior Student & Programs Coordinator

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Senior Lecturer, Digital Advertising

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

The PhD Journey – How to Identify a Fantastic Supervisor

Entering graduate school to complete a doctorate degree is one of the most important decisions in an academic’s research career. This decision requires a logical evaluation of one’s long-term career path. Before beginning a PhD course, some key aspects should be decided:

1) Choosing your niche of interest

2) Selecting an excellent supervisor

It is certainly easier to pursue your career when you identify a research problem that interests you. In addition, having shared interests with your mentor/supervisor will help build working relationships. It is wise to outline your interests first and then align it with those whose ideals reflect yours. There are plenty of examples in academia where the working relationship has suffered due to poor mentorship. Furthermore, in academia, poor mentorship is the unfortunate norm and not the exception, although academics are now actively raising awareness publicly. We have addressed some of these concepts previously that include –

• Dealing with a bad student-advisor relationship
• Managing work relationships with an advisor
• Dealing with unfair authorship claims
• Obtaining academic support for researchers

In this article, we outline a guide to selecting a good PhD supervisor – perhaps even a fantastic one.

Selection Criteria

In a recent review, researchers tapped their own experience on how to approach a supervisor for research opportunities. It is important to acknowledge your research plan , capacity for independent funds, and the type of supervision you seek. A supervisor will take on a variety of different roles (mentor, adviser, editor, and boss) in a 3-4 year PhD course. However, their primary task remains to provide you with resources and a sound research platform to advance your career.

Lab Rotations

Organize to meet your supervisor in person. This could be a primary visit to discuss the research potential or an expansive visit that includes visiting their research facility. Supervision is a partnership; learn and be willing to be guided constructively. There are some dos and don’ts that may assist you in the process right from the beginning of your PhD to thesis submission.

Healthy Work Partnership

Maintain continued interests in the research area. Furthermore, always maintain brief and productive communication as finding a supervisor is a personal choice. Maintain professional courtesy, while creating a healthy work partnership . A strong work relationship is mutual, always be mindful of what you contribute and receive in return.

Discussions with Present and Previous Lab Members

It is perhaps most vital , to ensure that a supervisor of interest has a good background both professionally and personally . Existing problems in academia arise mostly due to personal conflicts, rather than professional differences. If research on your potential employer’s background results in allegations, restart your search.

Ideal Supervision

The concept of an ideal supervisor varies across academic disciplines and can be a personal viewpoint as well. The University of Calgary has an entire e-book published on this subject. Although the search for an ideal supervisor is tedious; a few databases offer options to delineate the process. A reasonable research supervisor must:

• Mentor graduate students,
• Train students in research and
• Train students in writing publications/grants.

Lab Attrition Rates and Lab Placements

Choosing a research supervisor in the life sciences specifically is a bit more complicated than in other disciplines. Key reasons include funding rates, lab attrition, and ensuring first-author research publications for career advancement. This process can be facilitated by contacting the senior Faculty for general information. Alternately, you can also check your eligibility to receive independent funding as a graduate scholar through an affiliated public University. Once you decide that an individual meets the key criteria in your checklist, consider making a formal application with that fantastic researcher. Good luck.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Career Corner

Academic Webinars: Transforming knowledge dissemination in the digital age

Digitization has transformed several areas of our lives, including the teaching and learning process. During…

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

Mastering Research Grant Writing in 2024: Navigating new policies and funder demands

Entering the world of grants and government funding can leave you confused; especially when trying…

How to Create a Poster That Stands Out: Tips for a smooth poster presentation

It was the conference season. Judy was excited to present her first poster! She had…

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

Recognizing the Signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

7 Steps of Writing an Excellent Academic Book Chapter

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

• Industry News
• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer-Review Week 2023
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

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

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

You're viewing this site as a domestic an international student

You're a domestic student if you are:

• a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• an Australian permanent resident, or
• a holder of an Australian permanent humanitarian visa.

You're an international student if you are:

• intending to study on a student visa,
• not a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• not an Australian permanent resident, or
• a temporary resident (visa status) of Australia.

What makes a good PhD supervisor?

UQ people Published 5 Jan, 2023  ·  9-minute read

Your PhD advisor will play a key role in ensuring your Doctor of Philosophy is a rewarding and enjoyable experience.

Choosing a PhD supervisor can therefore be a daunting prospect. But we’ve enlisted the help of 2 UQ PhD advisors and researchers, Dr Loic Yengo and Professor Marina Reeves, to pinpoint exactly what you should be looking for. Better yet, they share their tips for maintaining a positive and fruitful working relationship with your PhD advisor throughout the typical 3-4 years of your candidature.

In this article, they'll cover:

• the role of a PhD supervisor
• how to choose a PhD supervisor
• the qualities of a good PhD supervisor
• tips for the first meeting with a PhD supervisor
• how to maintain a positive relationship with a PhD supervisor
• how to give and receive PhD supervisor feedback
• advice for ensuring a mutually beneficial relationship between candidate and advisor.

While the traditional and widely used term is ‘PhD supervisor’, here at UQ, we like to say ‘PhD advisor’ to emphasise the purpose of the role, which is to advise rather than manage. However, we use both titles interchangeably throughout this article.

Meet Professor Reeves: UQ PhD advisor and Deputy Associate Dean Research (Researcher Development), Faculty of Medicine

Professor Reeves’ research is focused on the role of diet, physical activity, and weight/body composition in improving outcomes and quality of life for women diagnosed with breast cancer. She is currently an advisor to 2 PhD candidates whose research concentrates on breast cancer survivorship.

“One of my candidate’s research is focused on understanding more about behaviours that disrupt circadian rhythm (our body clock), like when we sleep and eat, and the role these behaviours may play in improving the health and wellbeing of women after a breast cancer diagnosis,” says Professor Reeves.

"The other is focused on the subgroup of women with triple negative breast cancer, the most aggressive breast cancer subtype.”

This PhD project uses specific data to understand more about the incidence and survival of the different breast cancer subtypes.

“Her research is also exploring whether modifiable risk factors like body weight are associated with prognosis in women with triple negative breast cancer.”

Meet Dr Yengo: UQ PhD advisor and Group Leader of the Statistical Genomics Laboratory , Institute of Molecular Bioscience (IMB)

Doctor Yengo’s research involves matching genetic differences with particular character traits to help predict how societies will evolve. He is currently an advisor to 3 PhD candidates whose research topics are in a similar vein.

“PhD candidates in my lab work on a wide range of projects connected to the analysis of large-scale datasets containing DNA sequences of millions of individuals from across the world,” says Dr Yengo.

“One project is about using DNA patterns to understand how people choose their spouses; another one is about discovering genetic variations that cause disease in specific populations.”

The findings could help policymakers and health professionals better prepare for – and therefore reduce the burden of – genetic disorders and diseases. But how do Dr Yengo and his team draw meaning from such vast quantities of data?

“For each project, we often develop novel statistical techniques to analyse these large volumes of data to answer the fundamental questions that we are interested in,” he says.

“By ‘developing' novel statistical techniques, I mean deriving the maths underlying the algorithms, and also programming these algorithms into new software tools.”

“Our research is intrinsically multi-disciplinary but we do love maths and stats in the Lab!”

The role of a PhD supervisor

When it comes down to it, what exactly is the role of a PhD supervisor? And how will a good PhD advisor guide you with your research?

For Dr Yengo, it’s about achieving a balance between teaching practical skills and providing inspiration and support for the PhD candidate to pursue their passion.

“I believe that the role of a PhD supervisor is to help the candidate develop their own program of research, eventually,” he says.

“That includes teaching key skills such as reading a lot, asking the relevant questions, managing time and energy (this is a hard one) and not being afraid to dream big!”

Professor Reeves singles out 3 key roles:

• advising and guiding on the research process and research topic
• being an advocate for your PhD candidate – providing encouragement and opportunities, and helping them to open doors by introducing them to your networks
• being a role model – modelling integrity and championing others’ success.

Choosing a PhD supervisor

Choosing a PhD supervisor can be a tricky business. Undertaking your Doctor of Philosophy is a lengthy process , so you’re going to be in a professional relationship with your supervisor for a pretty long time. The pressure is on to find ‘the one’. But how do you know they’re going to be the right fit? Dr Yengo and Professor Reeves have a few tips to help you reach a conclusion.

The first step? Ironically, it’s doing your research on the researcher.

“I would suggest researching what the supervisor works on and what they have published before,” says Dr Yengo.

Professor Reeves acknowledges the importance of this step too.

“There needs to be a good alignment between their area of expertise and the PhD project so they can guide you appropriately.”

Step 2 is, according to both advisors, to not be afraid to shop around.

“Engage in informal chats with potential supervisors early in the process, especially when you are undecided,” says Dr Yengo.

“These discussions can help you form your own research questions and define a suitable direction for your research.”

Professor Reeves also encourages potential PhD candidates to seize opportunities to work with prospective advisors before locking them in.

“Whether that’s as an honours or other research coursework supervisor, summer research project, or research assistant work – it will allow you to see if their supervisory style and research is a good fit for you,” she says.

Read more tips on how to approach and choose a PhD supervisor , straight from UQ PhD candidates.

A clear discussion on expectations upfront is crucial - expectations around the working relationship and the project itself.

Qualities of a good PhD supervisor

A good PhD advisor requires a careful balance of traits and skills. You want them to provide guidance without being overbearing, and to offer advice while letting you figure things out yourself too. There's a lot to consider when choosing a PhD supervisor, so Dr Yengo and Professor Reeves have pinpointed a few of the most important qualities to look out for.

The first and arguably most critical is more of a requirement than a quality, and it’s that your potential PhD advisor is simply available . They need to have the time and energy to commit to you and your PhD.

A few other essential qualities of a good PhD supervisor are:

• clear communicator
• caring and approachable
• a leader in their field of research
• open to learning from others.

“By generous, I mean someone who is willing to share their wisdom and time to dedicate to your growth and development as a researcher,” says Professor Reeves.

She also advocates for finding an advisor who promotes a healthy work/life balance .

Dr Yengo explains that it’s important for a PhD advisor to be both a coach and a mentor , where as a coach they will help you find your own solution, and as a mentor they would share their experience and lead by example.

Tips for the first meeting with a PhD supervisor

Professor Reeves advises on using the first meeting with a PhD supervisor to outline expectations of both the advisor and candidate.

“A clear discussion on expectations up front is crucial – expectations around the working relationship and the project itself.”

“Find out how often they would meet with you, what resources and support would be available for you, what their research vision is or what they believe the impact of the PhD project will be.”

When Dr Yengo approaches the first meeting with his PhD candidates, he likes to find out:

• What is motivating the student to start a PhD?
• What are their technical skills and why are they interested in the topic?
• What are their career aspirations after completing their PhD? (Note that this can change in the process of doing a PhD.)

Heading into your first meeting prepared to outline your expectations and listen to theirs, and answer these questions, is a good way to create a solid foundation for the relationship between you and your PhD advisor.

Supervisors should create a culture that welcomes questions and mistakes, because that’s what it takes to learn.

The PhD supervisor relationship: keeping it positive

When it comes to maintaining a positive working relationship between PhD advisor and candidate, Dr Yengo and Professor Reeves both agree that the focus should be on the process, rather than the outcome.

“It’s important that the advisor takes an active interest in the candidate’s development as a researcher,” says Professor Reeves.

“A PhD is a research training process, so the focus shouldn’t just be on the outcome of the research project, but equally on the development of the candidate as a researcher.”

Dr Yengo says regular meetings are important for this reason. It encourages candidates to ask questions and share updates on their work.

“Candidates don’t have to wait until (they think) they have solved all the problems before discussing with their supervisor. This is often very counterproductive,” he says.

“Supervisors should create a culture that welcomes questions and mistakes, because that’s what it takes to learn.”

When considering the desired professional outcomes of a PhD, Professor Reeves encourages continued discussions around the candidate’s career plans, to ensure the research experience is always contributing to career goals.

“Regular conversations around the candidates’ career plans and development are important for maintaining a positive working relationship but also a successful outcome for the candidate post-PhD.”

Giving and receiving PhD supervisor feedback

A huge part of the PhD advisor and candidate relationship is giving and receiving feedback. And doing this effectively.

“The most important thing is to understand that feedback is part of the learning cycle,” says Dr Yengo.

“Feedback is never a definitive assessment or an exam; therefore, it should emphasise what can be improved in any given situation and towards a well-specified objective (e.g. a paper or a specific analysis).”

According to Professor Reeves, feedback should be:

• critically thought-out
• constructive, with clear guidance on what is needed to improve and what the next steps are
• positive – it should go beyond pinpointing constructive changes, to also identify what has been done well and what has improved from previous versions
• consistent – not changing from week to week

“If you aren’t getting this with your feedback, don’t be afraid to ask for more detail or guidance,” says Professor Reeves.

She also outlines the importance of acknowledging the receipt of feedback and voicing when you respectfully disagree with it.

“There will come a point in your candidature where you will be more of an expert on a topic than your advisor,” she says.

“So, if you disagree with feedback, instead of just disregarding it, explain why you disagree. That’s also helpful for your development in terms of being able to justify and defend your thesis.”

When it comes down to it, feedback isn’t only for the advisor to give.

“Both candidate and supervisor should be patient and willing to learn from each other,” says Dr Yengo.

Making it mutually beneficial

Like all relationships, the one between a PhD advisor and candidate is a two-way street. Both must be invested in the working relationship for it to flourish. While the purpose of the process may be for the candidate to receive guidance and advice, you can also have a lot to offer your future advisor too.

“Interacting with PhD candidates can be extremely exciting as they often get a fresh perspective on problems,” says Dr Yengo.

“The professional relationship flourishes when we equally want to know the answer to the question. This can lead to fast and productive cycles of discussions, which often generate the most creative ideas.”

Professor Reeves believes mutual respect is key to a successful advisor/candidate relationship, as well as a shared vision.

Both advisors acknowledge the challenges of achieving a positive work/life balance while completing a PhD, and Professor Reeves points out how personal and professional respect can come into play here.

“I think it helps when they can see that you, as the advisor, care about the work and research, but also care about them as a person."

So, what makes a good PhD supervisor? Balance. Balance between professional and personal approaches to work and life, constructive and positive feedback, coaching and mentoring, leading and learning. Search for an advisor who can demonstrate balance in these areas, and you’re sure to have an enriching PhD experience.

Ready to pursue your passion for research with a Doctor of Philosophy?

Learn more about studying a PhD at UQ

Share this Facebook X LinkedIn Email

Related stories

How to get a PhD

4-minute read

What makes a good PhD student?

3-minute read

Why do a PhD at UQ?

7-minute read

What's it like to do a PhD at UQ?

8-minute read

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
• Correspondence
• Published: 11 May 2017

PhD supervisors: be better mentors

• Devang Mehta 1 &
• Konstantinos Vavitsas 2  

Nature volume  545 ,  page 158 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

31k Accesses

5 Citations

43 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

As steering-committee members of the European Association of Students and Post-docs in Synthetic Biology, we find it questionable and unhelpful to blame research students for the breakdown in communication with supervisors ( E. Diamandis Nature 544 , 129; 2017 ).

We agree that PhD students should be proactive in their investigations and in using their supervisor's expertise. First, however, they need to find their feet. They are largely naive about the highly competitive nature of science when they start in a lab, and often have no experience of project management. PhD students are not trainees or employees: they need guidance and supervision, particularly during the first two years.

PhD students today face more challenges than most professors ever did. The supervisor has mentoring responsibilities beyond academic performance, including the student's well-being. Many PhD students crack under the strain of publishing pressures and deteriorating career prospects (see go.nature.com/2pt9q6j ). Unless underpinned by appropriate support, meetings with the supervisor risk reinforcing the student's fear of failure.

European universities are tackling this problem by providing more courses and resources to train principal investigators in management and leadership. Their widespread requirement for PhD candidates to have completed a master's degree before enrolling means that students are better equipped to deal with the few islands of success in the sea of failures typical of the research environment.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ETH, Zurich, Switzerland

Devang Mehta

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Konstantinos Vavitsas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Devang Mehta .

Related links

Related links in nature research.

A growing phobia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mehta, D., Vavitsas, K. PhD supervisors: be better mentors. Nature 545 , 158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/545158a

Download citation

Published : 11 May 2017

Issue Date : 11 May 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/545158a

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

This article is cited by

Plant pathology in the era of new education policy: challenges and opportunities.

• Chirantan Chattopadhyay

Indian Phytopathology (2021)

Quick links

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

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

Website changes are in-progress. Learn more ➜

• Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Introduction  

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

Introduction

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

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

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

return to top

  Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

return to top  

  Advice on program of study, research and professional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meetings/consultation 

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

The University encourages supervisors to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Financial assistance

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

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

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

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

Intellectual property 

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

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

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

Publications 

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal of supervisory duties 

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

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

back to top  

Accommodation 

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

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

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

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

>> next section : Roles and responsibilities of graduate students

Related links

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

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

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

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

Tress Academic

#10: Good PhD-supervision: What you can expect

May 14, 2019 by Tress Academic

Are you wondering what one might typically be able to expect from a good PhD supervisor? Are you uncertain if your own supervision ticks all the boxes? Are you having one issue or another with supervision and you’re not sure if this is normal? We’ve compiled this exposé of ‘Five pillars of good PhD-supervision’ to give you more clarity on what to expect, plus an added bonus self-check ‘How good is my PhD supervision?’

We often find that PhD students are uncertain as to what they might actually be able to expect from a PhD supervisor, and what actions a good supervisor would or wouldn’t take. We also often meet PhD students who are having issues with supervision, but do not know if what they’re experiencing is common, normal or actually an exception. 

There is evidence from a range of studies of how important good supervision is for the PhD experience, process and outcome ( Woolston, C. 2017 , Max Planck PhD-net 2018 ). It is quite clear, that the difficulties in undertaking a PhD study become easier with a great supervisor by your side. That is not to say that individual PhD students- who do not have good supervision won’t make it, but there is a significant difference between just ‘completing ’ or handing in a great dissertation with a fantastic learning experience behind them. Everyone can benefit from the expertise of a superb and experienced supervisor. 

The aim of this blog-post is to give you an idea about these five essential elements, which together constitute the pillars of good PhD-supervision. This can help you to make an informed judgement about your personal situation and eventually encourage you to start improving aspects of your supervision, if you feel it necessary. For those of you who are right at the beginning of a PhD and have not yet chosen a supervisor (or not appointed all your supervisors), our five features can give you some orientation of whom to pick. Ideally, you get a trusted supervisor who will meet all five features. If you’re curious how yours stack up, we’ve included a self-check ‘How good is my PhD-supervision?’ for you to take at the end of this post! 

However, there is no black and white standard of exactly what your supervisor should do, so it can be difficult to evaluate based on a formula of “if this does not happen, then they’re not a good supervisor”. The boundaries are rather grey and a good relationship to your supervisor does not hinge upon the fulfilment of a single aspect. There are many ways  for good supervision to express itself. 

Still, we believe there are a couple of features that are essential and constitute “good supervision” and we want to outline these for you. If your supervisor lacks several of these essential features, it can be tricky to get sufficient support for your PhD in the long run. 

Today in many countries and disciplines, it is common to have a supervisory team, so you are advised by multiple people. The responsibilities are often shared between one main supervisor and 1-3 (and eventually more) co-supervisors. Supervisors may also be called mentors or advisors(just so you know that this is the same thing unless your PhD regulations specify another meaning in your case). 

So here are our five pillars of good PhD supervision:

1. Guidance

Guidance is the no.1 pillar of good supervision. You should receive guidance from your supervisor for all matters – big and small – regarding your PhD study. Your supervisor should give guidance in particular, regarding:

• Your research and individual aspects hereof. What do you research and how?
• The planning of your project. That means guidance on how to design, set-up and carry out a project in the given time span. 
• The outcomes of your PhD in terms of publications, patents or potential applications.
• The educational part of your studies. How you acquire the necessary skills to succeed with your project, and in a broader sense, how to become an independent researcher. This also includes complementary skills courses like the ones from TRESS ACADEMIC .
• The administrative aspects around your PhD , such as: PhD regulations of your university, deadlines and documents that have to be handed in to your graduate programme , composition of a supervisory team, examination board, submission of your dissertation, etc… 

2. Expertise

Good supervision means to have a supervisor who has expertise in the very subject area in which you undertake your PhD project. So they should have excellent knowledge of the discipline, know the latest innovations and cutting-edge questions, can anticipate future trends, and are  recognised scholar in your scientific community. Their research interest is your research interest and vice versa. 

Ideally, your supervisor is also trained pedagogically on how to supervise PhD students. The pedagogic expertise is complementary to the research expertise. You won’t benefit much from a superstar from  your field who shows little interest in transferring their knowledge to you, or does not concern themselves with  how they can help you learn. 

Your supervisor should support you in pursuing your goal of getting the PhD degree. Having a supportive supervisor means you have a person you can trust and who will be on your side. Support should include mental support, but it also means having  a helping hand when needed – to make contact with other scientists, get help with data permits or ethical clearances, gaining you access to data, or financial support. Having a person you know you can rely on when things get tough is a big plus. 

A supportive supervisor maintains a positive attitude towards your project and displays empathy. They should display a keen interest in seeing you succeed, encourage you to broaden your horizons and try out new things. They offer sympathy when something goes wrong, show understanding for your situation, and motivate you when you’re feeling down. 

While guidance emphasises the procedure of successfully steering you through the 3-4 years of a PhD, support is your safety net, when you’re off track or when there’s something to handle that exceeds your power.   

4. Regular interaction

Although ‘having regular interaction with your PhD supervisor’ sounds almost too obvious, we know that many PhD students struggle with this aspect. We often hear comments like ‘my supervisor is difficult to get hold of’, ’my last meeting with my supervisor was months ago’, ‘my supervisor often cancels/postpones meetings’, ‘it takes ages for my supervisor to give me feedback on my work’ and so on. 

The problem with a lack of interaction is that it is key to the other pillars. If you have little interaction, most other features become problematic as well. If you lack interaction, you also lack support and guidance. You can have the ‘internationally-acknowledge-no.1-specialist’ in your field as supervisor, but if they hardly ever meet with you, you won’t get much out of their supervision. 

A good supervisor maintains interaction by way of regular supervisory meetings and spontaneous encounters. Here’s a short characteristic of both types: 

4.1. Supervisory meetings

In these meetings your supervisor and you meet regularly to discuss aspects of your project and PhD progress. This is the time when you get your supervisor’s full attention. You get input, can exchange ideas, you receive constructive feedback, and – as part of the package –  quite a lot of –  criticism as well. Through feedback in regular meetings you learn and grow. Your supervisory meetings are scholarly disputes about your work among the expert and the novice. Supervisory meetings are also necessary to administer and manage your project – setting targets, checking progress, and making sure that whatever you have to hand in to the university or grad school gets there on time and as required. 

4.2. Spontaneous encounters

You should also be able to approach your supervisor spontaneously with a question, a problem, or some great news you want to share and vice versa. Spontaneous interaction allows you to ‘be-in-touch’ and get to know each other in different ways and built a collegial relationship. It can help to clarify an urgent question so that you can proceed with your work without having to wait until the next meeting. 

But ad-hoc encounters are never a substitute for the regular meetings. If you have no meetings, and you receive all your supervision in form of spontaneous chats or advice, there’s something wrong. 

5. Advice on progress

You’ve got a limited time to complete your PhD of 3-4 years normally. Your supervisor should be keen to see you finish in this time-frame. A good supervisor is aware of your time-constraints right from the start, and supports you in getting through the entire process in a timely manner. But, apart from guidance and support, advice on your progress needs specific actions from your supervisor. It is conscious and deliberate checking of the adequateness of your progress in the different phases of your PhD that will make the difference. 

At the beginning of your PhD project, you should get advice on the adequateness of the project itself. Your supervisor should be checking if the project you want to work on is suitable for completion, with the expected outcome, in the given time-frame. A good supervisor will also warn you if that is not the case, and suggest changes to your project. 

After the onset of your PhD project and further into the process, you’ll need a supervisor who is regularly checking-in with you regarding the progress of your work and it’s quality. Towards this goal, many PhD programmes have included ‘TAC’ (Thesis Advisory Committee) meetings as a fixed requirement that has to be completed in order to progress with the PhD, or getting the necessary credits for the accompanying graduate programme. In case you’re not familiar with this: during the ‘TAC’ meetings, which take place 1-4 times a year (frequency depends on your programme), all of your supervisors formally meet with you. You present your recent progress and latest results to  get feedback on the adequateness of your advancement. ‘TAC’ meetings may also be called ‘PAC’ (PhD advisory committee) meetings, or ‘Supervisory Committee’ meetings.

The crucial point here is that you have at least one supervisor (but ideally multiple) who give you candid feedback once in a while so you know if you are on track or not. If you have a main supervisor who regularly checks your progress, and you hold the required number of TAC-meetings, you’re minimising the chance that there will be problems with the acceptance of your PhD thesis and the potential for lengthy demands to make fundamental changes to your dissertation in the end. 

In the final year and months, a good supervisor will advise you on the completion of individual parts of your work and requirements for submitting your thesis and preparations for the defence and final examination. 

How good is your supervision?

Now, are you pondering how your supervision scores on the five mentioned pillars? Are you happy with your supervision? Do you get good guidance? Are you benefitting from your supervisors’ expertise? Does your supervisor meet regularly with you? Do you receive support when you’re feeling down and demotivated? And, is someone giving you frank feedback on your progress? 

If you’re curious, take our self-check ‘ How good is my PhD supervision?’  

So how were your results? Did you score super high and you have an amazing supervisor? Well great! You’ll get all the necessary support along the path to PhD completion. 

Or are you among those with quite modest scores and feeling  unhappy with your supervisory situation? Think about what you might do to improve it. Like in any other relationship you have a great deal of influence! Have you spoken to your supervisor about your requirements and made them explicit? Have you been honest about your struggles or difficulties? Your supervisor only has a chance to respond to your needs if you let them know what they are! Stay tuned to the SMART ACADEMICS blog for more supervision topics that give more detail on how to improve your relationship with your supervisor!

Related resources:

• Expert guide: 8 reasons why supervision can fail. 
• Self-check: ‘How good is my PhD supervision?’  
• Smart Academics Blog #12: PhD graduate school: Your game changer!
• Smart Academics Blog #57: Can’t get your message across to your supervisor?
• Smart Ac ademics Blog #68: PhD Support: Pick the perfect co-supervisor
• Smart Academics Blog #80: Do I have to include my supervisor as a co-author?
• Smart Academics Blog #81: Meet your PhD supervisor online!
• Smart Academics Blog #98: Should I replace my PhD supervisor?
• Smart Academics Blog #114: PhD-journey with obstacles and happy end!
• Woolston, C. 2017: A love-hurt relationship. Nature, vol. 550, pp. 549-552 .
• Max Planck PhD-net 2018: 2017 PhDnet report.  

More information: 

Do you want to complete your PhD successfully? If so, please sign up to receive our free guides.  

© 2019 Tress Academic

#PhDStudent, #PhDEducation, #Supervision, #PhDSatisfaction, #Doctorate 

Research management

Sponsored by

Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors

Is it time to add PhD supervision to your skill set? Tara Brabazon explains the pitfalls, challenges and rewards of this key academic role for the rookie mentor

Tara Brabazon

Additional links.

• More on this topic

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover elsevier.

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Campus webinar: the evolution of interdisciplinarity

A diy guide to starting your own journal, relieve student boredom by ‘activating’ lectures, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, can academic prenups help overcome barriers to interdisciplinary research.

I receive strange emails. Some request money, sexual favours or a reference. Thousands, sent from students, have outlined the failures of PhD supervisors. From this dodgy digital pile, one message remains in my memory.

A young academic was outraged. He was so outraged that he used capital letters throughout the email. He was offended that I had written an article ,  aimed at prospective PhD students, that provided a guide to selecting a supervisor/adviser with care, ensuring that expectations, rights and responsibilities are assembled at the start of their enrolment. He was outraged – sorry, OUTRAGED – that I focused on students and their right to choose. I had supposedly displaced his capacity to supervise by suggesting that students check academic credentials and expertise.

• Want to get on in research? You need to manage people effectively
• Efficient communication that avoids overloading students or staff
• How to turn a PhD project into a commercial venture

This strange email captures the dense and difficult negotiations of power within PhD supervision. Students have choices. So do supervisors and advisers. The alignment of purpose and priorities is crucial. Too often, this relationship is toxic. Therefore, let’s park the outrage and provide 10 maxims to consider as we start – or continue – as a supervisor/adviser, so that we are authentic, credible and useful.

1. Just because you have completed a PhD does not mean you can supervise one

Very few academics hold teaching qualifications, particularly outside the education disciplines. Higher degree supervision – too often – is based on homology. We supervise as we were supervised. Or – more worryingly – we supervise how we think we were supervised. This strategy has never been effective – as confirmed by PhD attrition rates . As the PhD student cohort diversifies to include more women, Indigenous and First Nation students, rainbow students, scholars of colour, students with disabilities, and a wide span of ages, homology is not only inappropriate but destructive. My first 18 completions were all students under the age of 25. My next 30 were all over 40. Our students are changing . They will not put up with platitudes, excuses or comments about the good old days.

Experience is not enough. Expertise is required. Enrol in professional development courses. Learn how to supervise. Learn about doctoral studies. It is a burgeoning field of research. Do not assume that we know what we are doing because we graduated with a PhD. Simply because we drink milk does not mean we can run a dairy farm. In no other area of our scholarly lives would we generalise from a data set of one.

2. Any academic can meet a PhD student – the skill is enabling the completion and submission of a quality thesis

It is very pleasant to supervise PhD students. They are bright people who work hard and think deeply. Yet these meetings in and of themselves do not ensure completion or that the research will reach the intellectual level required of a PhD examination.

Do you know the intellectual standard required to pass a PhD in your discipline? In other words, can you read a student’s close-to-completed thesis and know that it will pass? Can you locate the line between major and minor corrections; major corrections and a revise and resubmit; and revise and resubmit and failure? Which disciplines encourage split decisions when examiners disagree? Do you know how the policies, procedures and regulations of your institution shape and frame the PhD thesis that is sent to examiners? How does the digital submission of the thesis transform its preparation and examination?

This knowledge is derived from learning about the doctoral policies and procedures in your institution, reading a large number of doctoral theses and examination reports, and volunteering to be a viva chair or milestone assessor as often as possible. 

Talking to students over coffee or in a lab is important. Understanding the standard required for a doctoral thesis to pass with minor corrections is crucial.

3. Beginnings matter, so work hard in the first year

While the focus of the candidature – from the first day – must be on the examination, a short and successful enrolment is based on a powerhouse first year. Some of the most dreadful – and longest – candidatures I have seen have emerged from supervisors allowing students to wander about, thinking about their honours, master’s or capstone projects, drinking coffee and ambling through conferences, while complaining about their lack of progress.

The best candidatures begin as if the student is driving in a Grand Prix. Start your engines. Hammer to the first corner. It is important that students do not simply redo earlier projects. Find a subject area quickly, and then render it discrete, manageable and viable. If students can rapidly determine research questions, even if they are clumsy, then they have a focus. A strong first year of enrolment gives students confidence; they can publish early in the project and start to gain meaningful feedback.

4. Assess the student’s information literacy in the first month of their enrolment

Two pathways connect a student and a supervisor. The first involves teaching a student through their undergraduate years, and they continue through to a PhD with you as their supervisor. The second pathway involves students selecting you to supervise their project from outside your courses, university or country. Both modes of admission hold dangers, mainly involving assumptions about information literacy, academic literacy and disciplinary literacy.

Before my students start their supervision – whether I have known them for years or just begun a teaching and learning relationship – I ensure that they complete a PhD set-up document . This pamphlet, which I have used for every student I have supervised over 24 years, incorporates all modes of the doctorate – including the PhD by prior publication and the artefact-and-exegesis thesis – and fulfils a diagnostic role. It ensures that the student is thinking about a topic, they verify methodological, epistemological and ontological considerations, and also log their information literacy. For the supervisor, the completed set-up document and the subsequent meeting – which I usually schedule for two hours – provides the initiation into the doctoral programme.

From this diagnostic tool, a suite of professional development programmes can be inserted into the candidature, particularly involving the library, librarians and information literacy. From this foundation, literature reviews, systematic reviews and scoping reviews can emerge, which enable a rapid narrowing of the project and the development of research questions. 

5. Assumptions kill doctorates

Students maintain assumptions about a PhD. So do supervisors. If these assumptions are not communicated and managed, students and supervisors move through the candidature misunderstanding each other. The resultant “conversations” are hooked into confusion, resentment, bitterness and anger. Statements such as: “It’s your PhD” and “Tell me what you want me to do next” pepper the enrolment. The set up document and initial meeting replace assumptions with talking points about the rights, responsibilities and roles of supervisors and students. A clear, honest discussion about meeting frequency, feedback, modes of communication and the management of challenges at the start of a candidature not only saves time but reduces the likelihood of changing supervisors through the programme and cuts student attrition.

6. The selection of examiners is the single most important moment in a doctoral programme

Examination matters to a PhD. Our last stand for quality assurance and excellence in our universities resides in doctoral programmes. If we “dial a mate” and bring in friends to examine, it is time to close our universities.  Standards matter. When I was dean of graduate research, it was amazing how often I had very senior colleagues attacking me with aggression only seen in extreme cage fighting about the importance of their research partner, grant collaborator, co-author or former student acting as an examiner. The mantra would progress as follows (yes, this is a direct quotation): “There are only three experts in this field in the world. I am one of them and I am friends with the other two.” In this case, the area with only three international experts was – wait for it – body image.

Select an examiner who is intensely research-active, aligned to the field of the thesis without being so close that the student would be viewed as a threat, and resolutely independent of the supervisor.

To ensure a strong selection of external examiners, enact a full digital evaluation to ensure that they are research-active and a decent person, rather than in need of a Snickers at the first critique or differing view. Finally – and this is sad to write – select experienced researchers, supervisors and examiners. The toughest examiners are – obviously – the most inexperienced. They have a data set of one: their own thesis. They are a genius (obviously). Any thesis they read in the early years after their own submission and examination must be substandard (to their own).

To shift to the Star Wars universe, find a Yoda examiner rather than one with the impetuous confidence of a young Obi Wan or Luke Skywalker.

7. Make sure the SOCK is obvious, clear and present in the abstract (and the introduction and conclusion)

The PhD has one characteristic: a significant, original contribution to knowledge (SOCK) . Without a SOCK, a PhD will not pass. Each word is important. Research can be a contribution but not original. It can be original but not significant. Supervisor and student must work together to ensure that the SOCK is the strong frame for the candidature and thesis. The earlier a student can ascertain their SOCK, the smoother the progression to completion.

The SOCK is presented in the second sentence of the abstract: “My significant, original contribution to knowledge is…” As supervisors, we need to move the student into the space where they can complete this sentence as early as possible in their enrolment.

Examiners are paid very little to assess a thesis. It is hard work. Think about an examiner reading a thesis while drinking a glass of chianti. Therefore, in every chapter, a student must remind the chianti-fuelled examiner about the purpose of this chapter and how it aligns with the SOCK of the thesis. Ensure that the abstract, introduction, conclusion and every single chapter hook into the SOCK.

8. PhD students are not your slaves, sexual partners, un(der)paid research assistants or writers of your articles

One of the saddest memories of my academic career emerged in a meeting (obviously) when I had started as a dean of graduate research. Senior scholars – research heavyweights – were assembled in the room. Very early in the meeting one of these Mike Tysons described their PhD students as “slaves.” That was appalling. What was chilling was the laughter that erupted in response to this nasty noun. 

PhD students do not exist to serve or service the supervisor. They are not drawing breath so that they can complete a supervisor’s research project or write a supervisor’s articles. We all know – personally and professionally – shocking stories about supervisors “appropriating” the work of their students or adding their name to papers in which they had minimal intellectual input. Research codes of conduct around the world – most stemming from the Vancouver protocol – are creating changes, with institutions and journals demanding transparency and integrity from all authors through the submission process.

PhD students need a supervisor to protect, guide, mentor and enable. It is an unequal relationship. Shocking cases have been revealed around the world of the sexual exploitation of students, from sexual harassment through to sexual assault. These cases demean all scholars. The standards we walk past are the standards we accept. A PhD candidate is a student, and therefore worthy of respect, care, guidance and clarity in the standards of a professional relationship.

9. Create a strong supervisory team

Most university systems around the world insist on a supervisory team. That change is welcome; we cannot guarantee that the scholars who start the supervision will remain in place until the examination. A team adds safety, and a safety net for the student.

Supervisory teams, composed of two or more colleagues, are important. Sometimes, the relationships are fraught or non-existent. Many co-supervisors are simply on paper for administrative purposes and not involved in the project. The best relationships involve one of the supervisors using their specific expertise – often in methodology – to enable the creation of a chapter. When that part of the project is completed, they step back from the supervision. 

Supervisors should meet before any student is involved in the process to discuss their expectations, hopes and concerns about the project and the student. How often are meetings held? Who is involved in those meetings? How is feedback to be organised? How are disagreements – scholarly or otherwise – to be resolved? These questions must be answered and agreed on before the student is involved in the process.

10. Do not confuse the production of refereed articles with the construction of a thesis

Every PhD should have a dissemination strategy. Research must be available to ensure citizens and fellow scholars can use it – and transform it. Examiners also recognise the value of peer-reviewed publications as part of the PhD. Experienced supervisors remember that  the best examiners differentiate between the processes of  peer reviewing and examination. 

I have published more than 250 refereed articles. I have graduated from only one PhD. The confusion between publishing articles and examination dumbs down our doctorates. Indeed, it is becoming customary to assume that three refereed articles are sufficient in scope, scale and quality to create a successful PhD examination.

Three articles in three years would not reach the level required to be “research-active” as a scholar. Many of us produce between five and 10 articles every year. Indeed, the PhD by prior publication , an unusual but burgeoning mode of doctorate, submits a long (20,000-40,000 words) contextual statement confirming the significant, original contribution to knowledge, followed by a large number of publications, often spanning from 12 to 25 articles. 

In terms of quality assurance, how could three articles be equivalent to an integrated research project of 100,000 words? Indeed, how could three articles be equivalent to the 12 or more publications submitted through a PhD by prior publication?

Fine PhDs have been passed without any publications emerging from them. Theses with refereed articles have been subjected to revision and re-examination. Publishing research during a PhD is valuable. It must not be assumed that peer review and examination are equivalent or converge.

A final note: supervising PhD students is a privilege. It is not a right. Doctoral studies and the scholarship of supervision (SoS) literature are revealing how supervisory quality is built through experience, expertise, professional development and research-led andragogy. Our responsibilities as supervisors are not only to our students but also to our disciplines, to research ethics and the maintenance of standards. Great PhD students are our future. Great PhD supervisors remain at their service.

Tara Brabazon is professor of cultural studies at Flinders University. Her most recent books are 12 rules for (Academic) Life: A Stroppy Feminist Guide to Teaching, Learning, Politics and Jordan Peterson (Springer, 2022) and Comma: How to Restart, Reclaim and Reboot your PhD (Author’s Republic, 2022).

If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the THE Campus newsletter .

For more insights from Tara Brabazon:

How to get students through their PhD thesis

10 truths a PhD supervisor will never tell you

How not to write a PhD thesis

14 essential PhD questions answered

Campus webinar: the evolution of interdisciplinarity

Using data skills to turn students’ passion for sports into rewarding careers, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, how mozart and the arts can help students feel less awkward, strategies to empower first-generation university students, how self-determination theory supports post-covid students.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

• Questions to Ask PhD Supervisors and How To Contact Them

How to Write an Email to a PhD Supervisor and What to Ask Them

Written by Chris Banyard

Contacting a potential PhD supervisor can seem daunting but you really should if you're thinking of applying for a doctoral programme . Dropping them an email to discuss your research area is your chance to find out whether they’d be interested in supervising you.

Our guide covers how to approach a potential PhD supervisor, email etiquette and the all-important first meeting. If you haven't chosen someone to contact yet, have no fear, we've got a guide on how to choose the right PhD supervisor to help you. We've also covered what to expect from your supervisor .

Pick the right programme for you

There are lots of choices, let us help you to make the right one. Sign up to our weekly newsletter for the latest advice and guidance from our team of experts.

On this page

How to write an email to a phd supervisor.

Before you contact a potential PhD supervisor, be prepared to do your research on their research. Become familiar with their work and academic specialisms (if you aren’t already).

Supervisors will have their own academic profile page, either on their university/departmental website or elsewhere. These pages are good resources to find out about their work and research interests in their own words. They’ll usually mention whether they’re currently accepting supervisees – and what academic areas they’re keen to supervise PhD students in.

When writing an email to a PhD supervisor, you’ll need to show that you understand their previous publications and their current research activity. Don’t assume that you can send a generic email to a potential supervisor without displaying genuine knowledge and passion of their field.

Your first email to a potential PhD supervisor should be a formal email, in many ways like an application cover letter.

1. Include a clear subject line

Make sure your initial email doesn’t have a vague subject line that could lead to it being ignored (or heading straight for the spam folder). Some examples could be:

• ‘Prospective PhD student interested in Hegelian dialectics’
• ‘Enquiry for BBSRC-funded PhD in Viral Immunology’

2. Introduce yourself in the first paragraph

The first paragraph should introduce yourself and your background, including your current level of study and any experience. You should also establish your interest in studying a research topic under the supervision of the academic. It may be useful to briefly explain why you are interested, or how you discovered the supervisor, which can be a good way of building rapport with them. Plus, you can introduce your funding status or your intention to secure funding.

3. Explain your intent

The main body of the email should explain your intent in further detail. This section could act like a mini CV, and even complement it if attached . It should highlight your eligibility and enthusiasm for PhD study, and your interest in the supervisor’s research discipline.

Here, you can also explain your funding, residential, and study mode status in more detail. If you’re applying for a specific advertised PhD project, include the name of the project.

4. Summarise your interest

The conclusion should summarise your interest in the PhD and your suitability for it. You may also include future ideas and a polite invitation to reply. Make sure you’ve provided evidence of your commitment to (and experience in) this particular research area. Give examples of your familiarity with the supervisor’s own work.

When contacting a potential PhD supervisor, it's vital that the email is kept as brief, targeted and specific as possible. Try to avoid passive or hesitant statements. Supervisors are very busy, and if they find any reason why this email is not relevant it can be ignored.

5. Sign off professionally

Conclude the email to a PhD supervisor by thanking them for their time and consideration, with a professional sign off.

Choosing the right supervisor

Finding and choosing the best supervisor for your project can sometimes be tricky. We’ve put together a handy guide on what you’ll need to take into account.

Some extra advice

Be aware of email etiquette . As a formal email, effort should be made to be polite and respectful . Be assertive but avoid rudeness or disrespect.

Use the supervisor’s correct title , starting with “Dear” and signing off with “Yours sincerely” or “Kind regards”.

Make sure there are no typos or grammatical errors, and there is clear and consistent formatting.

Have patience! Supervisors can have hectic schedules and may not be able to reply to every email in good time. If there is no reply after one or two weeks, it may be worth sending a polite reminder email. Try to avoid badgering your favoured supervisor with numerous follow up emails, as this could give a negative impression.

Frequently asked questions

Should i email more than one potential phd supervisor.

It is OK to have multiple research interests and contact multiple potential supervisors. But it is important that each contact should be carefully considered. Each email should be tailored to the PhD supervisor in question. Copy-pasting an email and sending it to multiple potential supervisors isn’t a good idea. There should also be a degree of transparency – most supervisors will understand that you may be contacting others, so long as they are not misled to believe otherwise.

Should I send a CV to a PhD supervisor?

It is usually a good idea to attach a CV along with this email. This can complement the email and will demonstrate your appropriate qualifications and experience for a PhD. It is helpful to reference the key parts of your CV within the email. This is often more important for Science, Engineering and Medicine projects than it is for Arts and Humanities. It’s a good idea to attach a PDF version of your CV to avoid any potential formatting issues.

Should I send a research proposal to a PhD supervisor?

It is usually better to identify your potential supervisor and have already contacted them before writing and submitting a research proposal. Crafting a good research proposal can be time-consuming and may require a deeper understanding of the potential supervisor’s research before starting writing. For some PhDs, such as pre-set projects, it will not be necessary to write a research proposal at all, as you’ll be applying for a PhD that has already been organised and agreed upon by a funding body.

How to prepare for a meeting with a potential PhD supervisor

Often, emails to the potential supervisor will lead to a request for a meeting . This could be in person or via a video messaging platform like Zoom, Microsoft Teams or Skype. This is a good sign – the supervisor is interested in you as a candidate and may want to find out more about you or explain more in person.

You now have an opportunity to discuss your interests, ask questions, and meet your potential supervisor to see if they are compatible with you.

Although this is not the same as a formal PhD interview , it may still be worth approaching in a similar way, including preparing for interview questions . Although this should be more relaxed than an interview, you should be prepared and professional.

Preparation

Before the meeting, make sure you are familiar with the supervisor’s research and publications. Not only does this show interest in the supervisor and the research field, it will be useful to understand some of the topics you’ll be discussing.

It may also be worth reacquainting yourself with your emails to the potential supervisor. There may be specific questions or points brought up that could be discussed further.

Finally, make a good first impression. Be interested, interesting and dress professionally.

This is the first stage of developing a potential student-supervisor relationship . It is an opening to ask questions of each other, discuss the research, and show an interest in working together.

This should be a two-way meeting . Remember to evaluate your potential supervisor, checking if they are a right fit for you. Try to learn about their supervisory style, commitment to teaching, and their ability to offer you development opportunities. It may also be a chance to meet the research team and view the laboratory facilities (if appropriate).

After the meeting, it is worth evaluating everything you have learned about each potential supervisor and begin to compare them. Ensure you keep notes and keep in contact if necessary.

Questions to ask a potential PhD supervisor

While preparing to meet a potential PhD supervisor for the first time, it’s a good idea to have an idea of several questions you’d like to ask them.

You’ll want to sound enthusiastic and engaged. Showing that you’re interested in finding out more about their research and what supervision under them would look like is one way of doing this. Here are some suggestions:

• How many other PhD students do they supervise? This can be a good way to find out if you’re going to be part of a larger team of supervisees or a relatively small partnership. There may also be a chance to discover potential crossover between your research and that of your fellow students.
• What opportunities are there for career development during the PhD? Ask your potential supervisor about opportunities to attend PhD conferences, publish papers and teaching responsibilities.
• How often do supervisory meetings happen? The answer to this question can be indicative of whether your supervisor will take a hands-on (or hands-off) approach and help you find out how your relationship with them will play out. You might also want to ask them about their policy for reading drafts of your research.
• What expectations do they have of their research students? This could entail the number of publications you make during your PhD as well as participation in conferences and workshops.

Ready to contact some universities?

All of our PhD course listings have institution contact details attached so you can get your questions answered.

Our postgrad newsletter shares courses, funding news, stories and advice

You may also like....

We've answered some of the most frequently asked questions about PhDs, covering course types, applications, funding and the benefits of further study.

Getting ready to apply for a PhD? Our guides explain research proposals, references and entry tests for doctoral programmes.

Understand what a successful PhD research proposal needs to include and how to go about writing one for your project application.

A checklist of the things you'll need to do when making an international PhD application, from meeting the entry requirements to sorting out your visa.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

• Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
• Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
• Hear about our upcoming study fairs
• Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

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

• Schools & departments

Fundamentals of PhD Supervision

Fundamentals of PhD Supervision is an online course that has been developed by the Institute for Academic Development in consultation with the Doctoral College and relevant staff in Colleges and Support Services.

This course aims to help new supervisors develop their understanding of the role and responsibilities of PhD supervisors at the University of Edinburgh, and to encourage experienced supervisors to reflect on and develop their practice with an increasingly diverse PhD student population.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is this course for .

This course is for anyone who is currently supervising University of Edinburgh PhD students, or who will be supervising University of Edinburgh PhD students in the near future.  This applies whether you are a Principal, Co- or Assistant Supervisor.  It is suitable both for University of Edinburgh staff and supervisors who are external to the University. 

When should I do this course? 

It is a University expectation that all new PhD supervisors complete this course and that it is repeated every 5 years.  If you are new to PhD supervision, or new to PhD supervision at the University of Edinburgh, you will ideally complete this course before you begin supervising a PhD student.  

If you are an experienced supervisor you are required to complete the training every 5 years. The course is always available so you can dip back into it at any time to refresh your knowledge of specific areas.  

How do I access the course? 

University of Edinburgh staff should enrol on the course through People and Money Learning.  Enrol here:    Booking Link

External supervisors should contact [email protected] to gain access.  

How long will it take to complete?   

We estimate that it would take 3-4 hours to complete the course without watching the additional videos. The course is self-paced, you can leave and return to where you left off at any time. 

To complete the course, and in order for your completion to be recorded, you must work through all modules and complete the required activities.  

Does this course fulfil the compulsory training requirements for PhD Supervisors? 

Yes, but your College or School may also run a supervisor briefing to complement this course.  

What does the course cover? 

Fundamentals of PhD Supervision is made up of 7 modules. These are aligned to the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) Good Supervisory Practice Framework.  

Introduction to PhD supervision at Edinburgh  

Recruitment and selection  

Supervisory roles, responsibilities and approaches 

Setting expectations and monitoring progress 

Completion and final examination 

Supporting wellbeing 

Supporting professional and career development 

Each of these modules summarises key information for supervisors. This includes signposting relevant policies, codes and regulations, and support and training available for you and your student. In each, there is a strong emphasis on encouraging self-reflection and further reading. The next steps section offers some pointers to further professional development.  

The video content for each module is an additional part to the course. The videos are to provide further advice and information from the perspective of lived experience as a PhD supervisor.  

Does doing this course cover compulsory training requirements set by other research student funders (e.g. Research Councils)?   

This course may help supervisors to meet funder requirements as there is usually an expectation that you will meet your institutional training requirements for PhD supervisors. 

However, your student's funder may require additional training beyond what is expected by the University of Edinburgh. You should check with the funder directly to ensure you are complying with any specific requirements for supervisors.  

Will my attendance be recorded? 

To complete the course successfully, and in order for your completion to be recorded, you must work through all sections. People and Money will automatically track completion of the training modules.  

IAD will keep a record of attendance and completion of this course. Attendance updates will be provided to your school/deanery.  

You will not be issued a certificate of attendance on completion but please email [email protected] if you require one.

Who do I contact if I have comments or problems accessing the course? 

If you have problems accessing the course please email  [email protected]   

We welcome comments on the course so please contact us if you have any feedback.  There is also a feedback form in the final module of the course.  

Who do I contact if I have other questions about my role as a PhD supervisor? 

Your first point of contact should be the relevant postgraduate staff in your School or Centre.  This may be the PG administrative staff or the PG(R) Director or Head of the Graduate School. You can find contacts on the relevant School website:   

https://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/colleges-schools  

If you have problems identifying the relevant contact please email us, letting us know which School or Centre your PhD student is part of, and we will put you in touch with the relevant staff. Please email  [email protected]  

This article was published on 2024-02-26

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.

What do co-supervisors get out of a PhD?

PhD supervisors usually get paid to supervise. They also have the prestige of having lots of students under their belt.

It's common to also have co-supervisor (I think it's mandatory in many fields, in Australia at least). What do these people get in return for their services? Put another way: if I'm asking someone to be my PhD supervisor, expecting them to help me out a whole lot for the next 3-4 years, what do I have to offer them?

• 10 Ph.D supervisors don't get paid to supervise in the US. They get paid to teach and do research. –  Suresh Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 6:14
• 6 Lots of students ≠ prestige. –  JeffE Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 6:15
• 8 We don't get paid to supervise. We have to find money to pay students. –  Dave Clarke Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 6:42
• 11 I thought everyone made their students pay back 1/2 of the stipend in cash. –  StrongBad Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 10:15
• 1 @DanielE.Shub sssh! –  Luke Mathieson Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 10:30

2 Answers 2

Dave's remark on switching to the student's shoes and contemplating what you can get out of a co-supervisor is, in my opinion, a very useful one and should be of primary concern to students.

Let me put some personal perspective on this. I, as a senior post-doc, act as a co-supervisor of two PhD students (with some international twist to it within the EU context) and have colleagues who do the same, hence my observations below. Of course my view is one of a junior researcher, so take it with a grain of salt.

My benefits from being a co-supervisor are the following, in the order of subjective importance:

new horizons : the students act as drivers and catalysts of research topics I do not necessarily care for in a very personal and deep manner. It means that I can broaden my horizons and get somebody pushing me towards learning something new. That is a good thing for me as a curious person, as well as for my career.

publication record : given the first point, obviously, if the students work well and our collaboration works well too, since I get as much influence on their work as they allow me, or ask me to, we get together some useful stuff done and get papers published. I would stress the word "together", where I rather take the passenger's seat and try to help wherever necessary, but the crucial decisions are student's. The finished and delivered projects, as well as papers are obviously a good thing for both of us, too.

project leadership experience : often the collaboration is in a context of a project, where, as the more senior guy,I would take the role of a project manager, or a team leader. Of course this gives me plus points to the CV as well, not speaking about learning how to do this kind of work. Another good thing for my career.

soft skills : by doing the above and by that closely collaborating with people with whom my bond is tighter than just a joint interest (as it would be with a member of my community from a different institution), in a way, we are supposed to work out our ways along each other. At least for me, that is a good training too and good for my life and career, whatever twist should it take in the future.

should the collaborating partner become a friend of mine during the process, I would add it as a benefit too. But obviously this one is not everybody's piece of cake.

All in all, the points above boil down to a single one: being a co-supervisor means for me to become and act as a senior buddy to the student and prepares me for running my own lab/group, should it become reality one day.

Co-supervisors play different roles, which may vary from individual to individual. Sometimes they are there as a backup, either in case things go wrong with the main supervisor, or if the student needs someone else to talk to. They can read the papers (and eventual thesis) of the student and may even participate in the research, adding a different perspective. In some cases, they can be more active than the supervisor (this is often the case if the co-supervisor is a post doc). Often they will be a part of the committee assessing the thesis in the end.

What does the co-supervisor get out of it? Well, a tick on his/her CV. Publications. Experience dealing with students. Contacts. Ideas. And work. In any case, it is part of what an academic is paid to do.

The real question should be: what do I, as a PhD student, get out of having a co-supervisor?

• 3 This is also the case in Australia (I'm assuming the OP is from Australia). They often also add domain specific knowledge, in the case of a cross-discipline PhD. The only notable exception to what has been said is that none of the supervisors (in Australia) assess the thesis, the examiners are all independent. As you noted in other comments as well, no-one gets paid over and above their normal salary to do this either (main or co-supervisor). It is however mandatory to have at least two supervisors in Australia, to be the emergency backup. –  Luke Mathieson Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 7:49
• 1 I would have thought it obvious what a student gets out of a (co)supervisor... –  naught101 Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 8:55
• 1 @naught101: you'd be surprised what is not obvious and what is assumed to be known. –  Dave Clarke Commented Oct 3, 2012 at 9:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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

• 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

• Did the United States have consent from Texas to cede a piece of land that was part of Texas?
• ~1980 UK TV: very intelligent children recruited for secret project
• Uneven Spacing with Consecutive Math Environments
• Is math a bad discipline for teaching jobs or is it just me?
• Has technology regressed in the Alien universe?
• Improving equation looks
• Are the peer reviewers of a journal article allowed to voice surprise to the editor at a "minor revision" decision?
• If I purchase a house through an installment sale, can I use it as collateral for a loan?
• one of my grammar books written by a Japanese teacher/Japanese teachers
• What to do if sample size obtained is much larger than indicated in the power analysis?
• For applying to a STEM research position at a U.S. research university, should a resume include a photo?
• What is the origin of this quote on telling a big lie?
• What does "off" mean in "for the winter when they're off in their southern migration breeding areas"?
• Are there any poisonous species of salvia?
• Is the oil level here too high that it needs to be drained or can I leave it?
• Sci-fi book about humanity warring against aliens that eliminate all species in the galaxy
• Adding XYZ button to QGIS Manage Layers Toolbars
• Is it safe to carry Butane canisters bought at sea level up to 5500m?
• Does have subgather command like subequation? (elsevier format) (I wanna 1a,1b,1c)
• Stabilizing an offset wood bunk bed
• How to resize the image size in salesforce flow text template?
• MOSFETs keep shorting way below rated current
• shell script to match a function in a file and replace it with another function in another file
• How to install a second ground bar on a Square D Homeline subpanel