phd supervisor questionnaire

Machine Learning Blog | ML@CMU | Carnegie Mellon University

Statistics:.

• [ Submissions ]
• Submissions

Categories:

• Educational

[instagram-feed num=6 cols=6 imagepadding=0 disablemobile=true showbutton=false showheader=false followtext=”Follow @Mint_Theme”]

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.

A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

29k Accesses

133 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

Problems in the supervisory relationship

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

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

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

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

Perceptions and evaluations

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

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

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

Theoretical framework

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

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

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

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

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

The model for interpersonal supervisor behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedure and instruments

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

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

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

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

Reliability and internal validity of the QSDI

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

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

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

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

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

Concurrent validity of the QSDI

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

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

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

Average profile

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

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

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

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

Conclusion and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Open Access

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theo Wubbels .

See Table  5 .

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Received : 21 July 2008

Accepted : 17 January 2009

Published : 05 February 2009

Issue Date : September 2009

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

What can your PhD supervisor do for you?

4 ways to a more productive relationship.

Gemma Conroy

Credit: Thomas Barwick/Getty

31 March 2020

Thomas Barwick/Getty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Be clear about expectations from the start

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

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

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

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

2. Agree on achievable goals

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

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

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

3. Help students be independent and collaborative

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

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

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

4. Keep communication open

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

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

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

Call us : 0091 80 4111 6961

Crafting Effective Questionnaires for PhD Research: A Step-by-Step Guide

• PhD Research

Do you know the major problems researchers can face if they don’t craft productive PhD research questionnaires ? They may be unable to replicate the research and are also unable to help the readers understand the answers of the research questions. And not only that, but crafting ineffective questionnaires for your PhD research, can lead to your entire research being a futile prospect. But the story takes a turn.

After extensive research, we have understood that there are basically 3 steps to craft effective questionnaires for your PhD research. In this blog, we are going to describe those 3 steps so that you not only craft effective questionnaires but also help others to craft Effective Questionnaires for your PhD research. So, let’s get started, shall we?

But wait 🤚!!! Do these three methods help you create good surveys for your PhD research? is the first query you ought to address to yourself. I mean, is there a crucial query you ought to have answered before diving into the subject? Please think through and then read the remaining blog.

Why is it necessary to design efficient questionnaires for PhD research? So you might not be able to create the ideal questionnaire for your PhD if you don’t know the reason. As a result, you could be asking, “What is the solution?” Please read the remaining posts on the blog to learn more about this.

Crafting effective questionnaires is crucial for PhD research for several reasons:

• Obtaining reliable and valid data : Effective questionnaires ensure that the data collected is reliable and valid, which is essential for making accurate conclusions and recommendations based on the research findings.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : If a questionnaire is poorly constructed, it can undermine the credibility of the research and make it difficult to convince others of the findings.
• Improving response rates : An effective questionnaire is more likely to be completed by respondents, resulting in higher response rates and more representative data.
• Reducing bias : A well-crafted questionnaire reduces the potential for bias in the responses by ensuring that questions are clear, unbiased, and focused on the research objectives.
• Saving time and resources : By ensuring that the questionnaire is well-designed, researchers can save time and resources by collecting data that is directly relevant to the research question.
• Facilitating data analysis : An effective questionnaire can make data analysis easier and more accurate by ensuring that the questions are structured in a logical and consistent manner.

Hence, crafting an effective questionnaire is essential for obtaining reliable and valid data, enhancing the credibility of the research, improving response rates, reducing bias, saving time and resources, and facilitating data analysis. So, let’s jump into knowing the answers to these questions.

PhD research questionnaires development and validation

Before moving with this part, we have something important to discuss regarding the development of the PhD research questions. Can you guess what? It is as important as knowing the development process of PhD research questions. 

Developing effective research questions is an essential step in the process of conducting a PhD research project. Here are some tips to help you develop effective PhD research questions:

• Start with a broad topic : Begin by identifying a broad topic area that you are interested in and that has not been extensively researched. The topic should be significant and relevant to your field of study.
• Review existing literature : Conduct a thorough review of existing literature to identify research gaps and potential areas of exploration.
• Narrow down your focus : Once you have identified a research gap, narrow down your focus by formulating research questions that are specific, focused, and clear. Avoid broad and vague questions that are difficult to answer.
• Make sure your research questions are feasible : Your research questions should be feasible and answerable within the timeframe and resources available for your PhD project.
• Test your questions : Share your research questions with your supervisor and peers to get feedback and refine them further.
• Make sure your research questions are original : Ensure that your research questions are original and contribute to the existing body of knowledge in your field.
• Revise and refine : Continuously revise and refine your research questions throughout the PhD project as you gain more knowledge and insights.

Remember that developing effective PhD research questions is an iterative process and requires time, effort, and collaboration with your supervisor and peers. 

Now, another question can come in our mind which is “why validation is needed for PhD research questionnaires?” It will help you decide whether to validate the questionnaires or not. So, let us know the answer to this question and then decide.

Validation is essential for PhD research questionnaires for several reasons:

• Ensuring reliability : Validation helps ensure that the questionnaire measures what it is intended to measure consistently across different participants and situations. This increases the validity of the data that is gathered.
• Minimizing measurement errors : Validation helps identify and minimize measurement errors that could lead to inaccurate data and potentially flawed research conclusions.
• Increasing validity : Validation helps ensure that the questionnaire is measuring the construct or concept it is intended to measure. This increases the validity of the data collected and the research conclusions.
• Enhancing credibility : A validated questionnaire enhances the credibility of the research and can make it easier to convince others of the research findings.
• Improving research quality : A validated questionnaire can lead to better quality research by ensuring that the data collected is relevant, reliable, and valid.
• Meeting ethical standards : Validating the questionnaire helps ensure that participants are not subjected to unnecessary or irrelevant questions, which is important for meeting ethical standards in research.

Hence, validation is needed for PhD research questionnaires to ensure reliability, minimize measurement errors, increase validity, enhance credibility, improve research quality, and meet ethical standards.

Validating a PhD research questionnaire involves several steps. Here are some key steps to consider:

• Develop a clear research question : The first step in validating a questionnaire is to develop a clear research question that the questionnaire is designed to answer.
• Determine the type of validity: There are different types of validity that a questionnaire can have, such as content validity, construct validity, criterion-related validity, and face validity. Determine which type(s) of validity are most relevant to your research.
• Develop the questionnaire: Develop the questionnaire based on the research question and the type(s) of validity being assessed. Ensure that the questions are clear, unbiased, and relevant to the research objectives.
• Conduct a pilot study : Administer the questionnaire to a small sample of participants (e.g., 10-15) to identify any problems with the questionnaire and assess the validity of the questions.
• Evaluate the questionnaire : Evaluate the questionnaire for content validity, construct validity, criterion-related validity, and face validity based on the data collected from the pilot study.
• Refine the questionnaire : Refine the questionnaire based on the feedback received during the pilot study and the validity assessment.
• Administer the questionnaire : Administer the final version of the questionnaire to the target population.
• Analyze the data : Analyze the data collected from the questionnaire to determine the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
• Report the results : Report the results of the validity assessment in the research report, including the methods used to assess validity, the results of the assessment, and any limitations of the questionnaire.

Hence, validating a PhD research questionnaire involves developing a clear research question, determining the type(s) of validity to be assessed, developing the questionnaire, conducting a pilot study, evaluating the questionnaire, refining the questionnaire, administering the questionnaire, analyzing the data, and reporting the results.

Now, it’s time to go to the 2nd step which can help you a little more in crafting better questions in PhD research.  

Types of validation of PhD research questionnaires

Now, it’s time to understand the different types of validation of the PhD research questionnaire. But again , the questioning will not end. Why do we need to know about different types of validation of PhD research questionnaires? 

Knowing about different types of validation of PhD research questionnaires is important for several reasons:

• Ensuring the reliability and validity of data : Different types of validation can help ensure that the data collected from the questionnaire is reliable and valid, which is essential for making accurate conclusions and recommendations based on the research findings.
• Selecting the appropriate type of validation : Depending on the research question and the type of data being collected, different types of validation may be more appropriate. Knowing about different types of validation can help researchers select the most appropriate type(s) of validation for their research.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A well-validated questionnaire enhances the credibility of the research and can make it easier to convince others of the research findings.
• Improving research quality : Validating the questionnaire can lead to better quality research by ensuring that the data collected is relevant, reliable, and valid.

Now, I think there is no question left in this part except knowing the types of validation of PhD research questionnaires. If you have any questions in your mind, then you can comment below so that we can update the blog. So, let us jump into the answer to this question.

There are several types of validation of PhD research questionnaires. Some of the most typical varieties are listed below:

• Content validity : Content validity refers to the extent to which the questionnaire items adequately cover the intended content area. To assess content validity, researchers typically seek input from subject matter experts or use established guidelines or criteria to evaluate the relevance of the questionnaire items.
• Construct validity : Construct validity refers to the extent to which the questionnaire items measure the intended construct or concept. To assess construct validity, researchers may use statistical techniques, such as factor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis, to examine how well the questionnaire items align with the underlying construct.
• Criterion-related validity : Criterion-related validity refers to the extent to which the questionnaire items are related to an external criterion or standard that is known to be related to the construct of interest. To assess criterion-related validity, researchers may compare the questionnaire scores to scores on a standardized test or other measures of the same construct.
• Face validity : Face validity refers to the extent to which the questionnaire items appear to be relevant and appropriate to the participants. To assess face validity, researchers may ask participants to review the questionnaire and provide feedback on the clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of the items.
• Concurrent validity : Concurrent validity refers to the extent to which the questionnaire items correlate with an external criterion measured at the same time. For example, if a questionnaire is designed to measure depression, researchers may compare the questionnaire scores to scores on a depression scale administered at the same time.
• Predictive validity : Predictive validity refers to the extent to which the questionnaire items predict future behaviour or outcomes related to the construct of interest. For example, if a questionnaire is designed to measure job satisfaction, researchers may use the questionnaire scores to predict future job performance or turnover.

Hence, the most common types of validation of PhD research questionnaires include content validity, construct validity, criterion-related validity, face validity, concurrent validity, and predictive validity.

Principles and methods of PhD research questionnaires

We will divide this blog into two parts, in one part, we will describe the principles of PhD research questionnaires and in the next part, we will describe the methods of PhD research questionnaires. So, let us start the blog with the first part.

Understanding the principles of PhD research questionnaires is important because it enables a researcher to design effective and relevant questionnaires for their research. By following these principles, the researcher can ensure that the questions are clear, relevant, specific, feasible, original, testable, and significant, which will help them to gather accurate and useful data to answer their research questions. 

Additionally, understanding the methods of designing and administering research questionnaires will help the researcher to avoid common pitfalls and mistakes in the process, such as asking biased or leading questions, administering the questionnaire to an inappropriate population, or failing to pilot test the questionnaire. Ultimately, a well-designed research questionnaire can be a valuable tool for gathering data in a PhD research project and can contribute to the development of new knowledge in the researcher’s field of study. 

When formulating research questions for a PhD project, there are several principles that you should keep in mind:

• Clarity : Your research questions should be clear and concise so that readers can easily understand what you are investigating.
• Relevance : Your research questions should be relevant to your field of study and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
• Specificity : Your research questions should be specific enough to guide your research and help you to focus on the key issues that you want to explore.
• Feasibility : Your research questions should be feasible to answer given the resources and time available for your PhD project.
• Originality : Your research questions should be original and innovative so that they contribute to the development of new knowledge in your field.
• Testability : Your research questions should be testable through empirical research methods so that you can gather data to support or refute your hypotheses.
• Significance : Your research questions should be significant in terms of their potential impact on your field of study, and should address important research gaps or unanswered questions.

By following these principles, you can develop research questions that will guide your PhD project and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Now, it’s time to know the second part of this question which is the methods of PhD research questionnaires. It is the last step for us to craft better questionnaires for PhD research. 

Research questionnaires can be a useful tool for gathering data in a PhD research project. When designing a research questionnaire, you should consider the following methods:

• Identify the research questions : The first step is to identify the research questions that you want to answer. Your questionnaire should be designed to collect data that will help you to answer these questions.
• Choose the appropriate type of questions : Decide on the type of questions you will use, such as open-ended or closed-ended questions. Closed-ended questions are usually easier to analyze and quantify, while open-ended questions can provide more in-depth and nuanced responses.
• Determine the format of the questionnaire : The questionnaire can be administered online or in person, and can be structured or unstructured. The format will depend on the nature of your research questions and the target population.
• Develop the questions : Develop clear and concise questions that are easy to understand and answer. Avoid using jargon or technical language that may be unfamiliar to your respondents.
• Pilot tests the questionnaire : Before administering the questionnaire to your target population, conduct a pilot test with a small group of people to identify any potential issues or misunderstandings.
• Administer the questionnaire : Once the questionnaire is finalized, administer it to your target population. You may need to provide instructions or assistance to ensure that respondents understand the questions and how to answer them.
• Analyze the data : After collecting the data, analyze it using statistical or qualitative methods, depending on the nature of the data and research questions.

By using these methods, you can develop an effective research questionnaire that will help you to collect data and answer your research questions.

But wait!!! It’s not over yet. I hope you are a research enthusiast who wants to know more about creating better PhD research questions . Also, if you want us to help you in this matter, you can definitely contact us with the given contact information on the website. 

We haven’t answered one question in this blog. Can you guess the question? Then tell us in the comments.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

• Academic Writing
• Avoiding Rejection
• Data Analysis
• Data collection
• Dissertation
• Dissertation Defense Preparation
• Experimental Research
• Limitation and Delimitation
• Literature Review
• Manuscript Publication
• Quantitative Research
• Questionnaires
• Research Design
• Research Methodology
• Research Paper Writing
• Research Proposal
• Research Scholar
• Topic Selection
• Uncategorized

Recent Posts

• A Beginner’s Guide to Top 3 Best PhD Research Topics for 2024-25 thesis , Topic Selection January 16, 2024
• How to Write a Research Proposal and How NOT to in 2024 Research Proposal December 20, 2023
• 5 Unknown Differences Between Limitation and Delimitation Limitation and Delimitation November 21, 2023
• 3 Game-Changing Tips for PhD Thesis Writing in 2023-24 Citation , PhD Research , PhD Thesis November 3, 2023
• What to Do When PhD Dissertation Defense Preparation Derail? Dissertation Defense Preparation September 16, 2023

How to get published in SCI Indexed Journals

• Soch with Coach
• Straight Up

FIVE points you absolutely MUST KNOW before starting your PhD journey

Keep your checklists ready! Here are some of the things that one should not miss before applying for PhD

1. Background check of supervisor and research group. How to do it?

To ensure that your interest aligns with the potential supervisors you have shortlisted, look into their previous works and other contributions to the field. Look into the lab/group they are heading and their current projects. Ensure that you are working in a productive and supportive environment.

2. Gained admission into a reputed institution but forgot to look into your supervisor? This might not be a wise move

Well, relying solely on your institution's reputation would lead you nowhere. Examine your supervisor's Google Scholar profile, research articles and their publications. Understand the relevance of their project with yours and their ability to provide fruitful guidance.

3. Do not forget to ask for help. But how does one go about seeking help from former and current PhD students?

To make a more informed decision, do not hesitate to pose questions to alumni and current students about the lab facilities, the work culture, and the collective approach towards the research projects. Gain a deeper insight into their journey so far and make notes to give your journey a headstart.

4. You think finances don't matter while pursuing PhD? You are wrong.

Ensuring financial stability throughout your time is crucial as you will be dedicating a duration of your time solely to research. Look for fellowships available before starting your PhD, and other TA (training assistant) programmes offered by your institution. If your PhD programme exceeds five years, inquire about the additional support available.

5. Why hesitate while choosing the best for yourself?

Landed at a good university? Great. Helpful supervisor? Even better. What about other facilities aiding your research such as advanced equipment, the best library facilities and other adequate resources? Look out for them. Check if your institute has collaborations with other universities, and if there are opportunities for you to present at international conferences, and publish in prestigious journals.

For more information look into a recent post by The All-India Research Scholars Association ( AIRSA ) here

Before joining any institute for a PhD program, it's crucial to remember several points many students overlook. @AIRSAIndia advises prospective @PMOIndia @dpradhanbjp @DrJitendraSingh @AjaySoodIISc @PrinSciAdvGoI @TimesNow @timesofindia @the_hindu @TheLallantop @ThePrintIndia … pic.twitter.com/L3n9YjCEtg — All India Research Scholars Association (@AIRSAIndia) May 30, 2024

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Q: Can a supervisor be held liable for an employee accident due to fatigue if the company has a voluntary OT policy?

According to my departments MOU, I have to offer OT based on a list that ranks each employee on OT declined and worked. As a result, the first person on the list can work a lot of OT (in the hundreds) for an 80 hour pay period. If I continue to offer OT to the first person, and he/she continues to accept, has an accident either during working hours or off hours, am I liable? Am I protected by the MOU? Or, can I violate the MOU by asking the next person on the list when the first person has worked to many hours?

• Sacramento, CA
• Licensed in California
• (916) 704-3009
• Email Lawyer
• View Website

A: Under California law, a supervisor can be held liable if an employee's accident due to fatigue is foreseeable and the supervisor failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Even if the company has a voluntary overtime (OT) policy, the supervisor must ensure that employees do not work excessive hours that could lead to dangerous levels of fatigue. Your department's MOU does not necessarily shield you from liability. While it mandates offering OT based on a list, it does not override the supervisor's duty to maintain a safe working environment. If you observe that an employee is working excessively and showing signs of fatigue, you should intervene to prevent potential accidents. To mitigate risk, you can offer OT to the next person on the list if the first person has already worked an excessive number of hours. This action would be justified to ensure safety and could be seen as a reasonable measure to prevent fatigue-related accidents. Balancing adherence to the MOU with maintaining a safe work environment is crucial in fulfilling your supervisory responsibilities.

• Westminster, CA
• (949) 260-1181

A: No. A supervisor is not liable for the injuries incurred by an employee who is under his or her supervision. Any workplace injury would be a workers compensation claim, and workers compensation claims are not against individuals, only the company. Please beware, the other answer you have received is absolutely wrong and should be disregarded. Apparently his AI that generated his answer has no clue about how workers compensation works. Good luck to you.

Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.

The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.

Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• Common PhD Interview Questions
• Applying to a PhD

In this guide, we’ll share 11 common PhD interview questions and our suggestions on how to answer them.

A PhD interview is an essential step in securing a doctorate position. This is because it enables the prospective supervisor to get to know you better and determine whether you’d be a good fit for the project. Equally, it provides you with the opportunity to learn more about the project and what the university offers. Although being asked to attend an interview by the admissions committee can be daunting, it’s actually a positive sign. It means that based on your application and academic qualification, the academic department believes you have the potential to make a good PhD student for the position.

Whilst most questions you’ll be asked during your PhD interview will focus on your proposed research project, a handful of generic questions will almost certainly be asked. To give yourself the best chance of succeeding in the interview, we highly recommend that you prepare answers to these generic questions beforehand.

Without further delay, here are 11 common PhD interview questions and tips on how you should answer them.

1. Tell Us About Yourself

It comes at no surprise that this common ice-breaker question is at the top of our list. This question will likely be asked to help you calm your initial nerves and settle into your interview. As this is a warm-up question, aim to give the interviewer a general overview about yourself as opposed to a detailed breakdown. To achieve this, structure your answer into three sections:

• Academic History : start with a summary of your academic background – where and what have you studied? What grades did you achieve?
• Research Topic : go onto explain your research interest in your chosen topic – what do you like about it? Do you intend to pursue a career related to it upon obtaining your degree?
• Why a PhD : Finish with why you want to undertake a PhD – do you want to make a contribution to science? Do you want to get a job in academia?

2. Why Do You Want to Do A PhD?

Although you may have touched on this in your answer to the above, your interviews will want to know more of the detail if they ask this question as a direct followup.

Though it may appear obvious, the interviewer is specifically interested in discovering your personal motivations for undertaking a PhD . Too often, students answer this question by listing the benefits of a PhD. Not only will the interviewer already know the benefits of a PhD, but a generic answer also won’t help you stand out among the other applicants.

To answer this question and leave a lasting impact, try to include an academic or personal experience that has strengthened your passion for research. As well as this, outline what your career aspirations are and explain how the proposed PhD will help you achieve them. The key to selling yourself here is to let the interviewer know how passionate you are about the project without having to say it.

3. Why Did You Choose This Project?

This is your chance to show that you have researched the University, supervisor and project.

First, talk about the project. Is there a particular aspect that you’re interested in? If so, mention it. This will show that you’re engaged in the topic and already have a basic understanding of the field. Besides this, a great way to show that you’ve really looked into the research topic would be to discuss a certain part of the methodology the project could adopt.

Next, talk about the University – there may be several universities offering similar projects, but what makes this one stand out? Is it their resources? Is it the prospective supervisor’s research group? Is it their previous involvement in previous influential studies? Again, show that you’ve adequately researched the University and clearly understand what makes it unique.

Finally, you can mention if your decision to apply to their university has been influenced by the expertise of the proposed supervisor. Given that the supervisor will be highly knowledgeable in the research topic you’re applying to, it’s possible they may have contributed to some significant findings in it. If so, it’s acceptable to acknowledge this by mentioning how you would like the opportunity to work under their guidance. However, be careful not to overdo. Although you may be sincere in your answer, it can go against you if your supervisor feels like you’re trying to flatter him. To avoid giving this impression, focus on how his or her expertise will help you develop into a competent researcher.

4. Why Should We Choose You?

A very blunt question, but your PhD supervisor will want to make sure you’re the best candidate for the position. This is especially true given they’ll be responsible for supporting you over the next few years. Therefore, the primary aim of your answer will be to reassure them you have the skills and experience required to undertake a doctoral study. To achieve this, identify the critical knowledge and skills required for the project and discuss how you meet each of these. Follow up each justification with a short, relevant example to help give your answers more impact.

When asked this question, some students tend to just summarise their academic CV and cover letter . This isn’t an effective way to answer the question as you’re telling the supervisor information they already know about you. It’s fine to reiterate a few key points, however, try to delve deeper into what you can offer going forward as opposed to what you’ve achieved in the past. As part of your answer, identify the soft skills which will be imperative to the doctorate and state how you have each of these. These can include skills such as effective communication, great time management, problem-solving, adaptability and high work ethic.

5. How Did You Come up With This Project?

If you’ve developed your own research proposal , then expect to have to defend it as part of your interview. You should have a thorough understanding of what the current gaps in knowledge are surrounding your research topic and how these could limit the findings of your study. Besides this, you’ll want to show that you’re clear on what the key aims and objectives of your project are and appreciate how they could contribute to your field of research. This last point is essential in convincing the interviewers this project is a worthy pursuit. What makes your project groundbreaking and worth dedicating several years to?

The interviewer wants to know if you have thought out all aspects of your project and so will likely scrutinise the finer details of your proposal. Therefore, be ready to outline the literature you’ve read and discuss how you evaluated different methodologies before suggesting your current one.

If you want an edge over other students, you can also produce a high-level plan, similar to the one below (but with more detail), which outlines the different phases of your research project. This can include stages such as the literature review, undertaking experiments, producing your thesis and preparing for your viva voce. Although they won’t expect your plan to be fully accurate, especially given how dynamic research projects can be, it will show your positive attitude towards being imitative and taking responsibility for your project.

6. What Challenges Are You Expecting to Encounter in This Project?

A common PhD interview question students struggle with is “What difficulties do you think you will face?” This purpose of this question is to check how much you’ve thought about the project. Students who provide a poor answer generally do so as they think admitting to any potential difficulties may make them seem incompetent. This couldn’t be any further from the truth.

Identifying potential difficulties shows the interviewers you’ve given serious thought to the project. This reassures the supervisor that should you run into difficulties during the research, you’re not only capable of identifying them but also mature enough to do so. Not highlighting potential difficulties, whether it’s due to a lack of confidence or understanding the project, suggests your project will be vulnerable to problems which could go amiss.

When answering this question, try to follow up on each potential difficulty with how you intend to address it. This can include measures such as making use of internal development opportunities, enrolling onto external training courses or signing up to specific research master classes.

7. What Are Your Strengths and Weaknesses?

This is a standard question for most interviews, and a PhD interview is no different.

Pick strengths that compliment your PhD programme. For example, if applying to a Physics or Engineering PhD, mentioning you have good attention to detail would be highly beneficial given the amount of data analysis involved. Try to support each of your claims with a relevant example. Using the above case as an example, you could discuss how as part of your Bachelor’s or Master’s dissertation project, your high attention to detail allowed you to streamline some of your experiments or identify potential problems with your data.

Likewise, try to discuss a weakness that won’t be detrimental to your research project. An example of something you would want to avoid would be “I have a tendency to put the hard tasks off until the end until I know I should really start working on them to not miss any deadlines“. Although this may seem like a harmless response, it will seriously concern the interview panel. This is because a model student will need to be consistent in their efforts to meet the challenging workload, even in times of difficulty. As before, follow up your weakness with a plan on how you intend to address it. For example, if you state your weakness as public speaking, a suitable follow up would be to discuss how you would like to work on it by presenting your research to undergraduate students and attending seminars.

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

8. Can You Describe a Time You Encountered a Problem or Challenge and How You Approached It?

A key trait of all successful researchers is the ability to overcome problems independently. Given that even a minor problem can derail a research project, it’s important for your project supervisor to know whether you can adequately address them.

Despite what your example may me, try to cover the below three aspects as part of your answer:

• Identification – How did you identify the problem? Was a check you had in place triggered or did you stumble upon it naturally?
• Deconstruction – How did you break the problem down? Did you identify any assumptions or limitations which could have been associated with it? If so, how?
• Overcoming – How did you identify the solution? If you had several solutions, how did you determine the most sensible one? What did you learn from it?

Your example doesn’t need to relate directly to the research programme you’re applying to, however, it should be kept academic if possible. For example, you could discuss a challenge you encountered during your undergraduate dissertation project, such as limited literature on your research topic or inaccurate experiment results.

The key point to remember here is that a supervisor is there to supervise, not to fix all your problems. Not only will they not have the time do to this, but it will directly go against the ethical requirement of ensuring your work is yours and yours alone.

9. What Are Your Career Aspirations?

Your interviewers will want to see that you’ve considered what you will do after completing your PhD. This is to help them determine what your motivations are and to confirm that you want to enrol onto a PhD for the right reasons. It’s clear that anyone who has thought through their decision will have a long-term plan in mind, even if it’s a handful of well-considered options.

Don’t feel like your answer needs to relate to academia. One of the many benefits of a PhD degree is that it can lead to a variety of career paths. By being open with your true intentions, they can better determine what support and training you’ll require from them.

Despite your long-term goals, research into this and know the route you’d like to take post-PhD. A good understanding of your career plans and how to get there will go a long way in conveying your commitment to the project.

10. How Will You Fund This Project?

The interviewing panel will ask about this if your project is self-funded or conditionally funded (e.g. competitive funding schemes where funding is not guaranteed).

You don’t need to provide a complete breakdown of your savings, nor would they expect you to. The primary concern the interviewers want to address is that you’re fully aware of the costs associated with undertaking a PhD . If you intend to apply for external funding or take on a part-time job, mention this. In doing so, make sure you stress that you will base your part-time work around your PhD and not the other way around. The interviewers want to reassure themselves that you will make your research your top priority throughout the course of your degree.

11. Do You Have Any Questions for Us?

This interview is not only for the supervisors to evaluate you but also for you to evaluate them, the PhD project and University.

Although you will have already researched the position at length, ensure you ask questions when offered to do so. Asking questions will show that you’re engaged and are an individual who likes to make informed decisions. Not asking questions, or not asking well thought-out ones, will send the wrong message.

If you’re wondering what makes a great question, a quick internet search for “What questions should I ask at a PhD Interview?” show’s you’re not alone. Some examples of great questions to ask in a PhD interview are:

• Are there any major developments or partnerships planned for the department? – Although this won’t always be the case, the department may be planning to upgrade its research facilities or partner with another leading institution. Asking about this shows you’re genuinely enthusiastic about undertaking influential research.
• What are the supervision arrangements? – This is a great way to find out if your expectations match that of your potential supervisors. This can include aspects such as how often the two of you will meet and what level of support they intend to provide.
• Will there be any opportunities for teaching within the department? – If you intend to pursue an academic career after completing your research, this will be a brilliant way to show them you’re committed to your long-term plans. Even if you plan on following a different career path, asking will let you know whether there is any opportunity to earn whilst you study.
• What opportunities will I have for presenting my research? – This shows you intend to be an active member within your research field. This won’t be great only for your development but will help the university increase its research network and reputation in the wider community.

Other PhD Interview Tips and Advice to Help You Prepare

• Format – The format of the PhD interview varies depending on the University. If you’re unsure of what format your upcoming interview will follow, get in touch with the department you will interview with. They should be able to give you an idea about what to expect and how long it will typically last. This knowledge will prove invaluable when preparing for a PhD interview.
• Video interview – Some interviews will be conducted as either a phone interview or a skype interview. This is especially true if you’re an international student still within your home country. If so, conduct your interview in a place with a reliable internet connection and a clean backdrop.
• Attendance – Usually, your interview will comprise the primary and secondary supervisor. However, sometimes your interview panel can comprise non-technical staff or the Head of Department.
• Presentation – You may be asked to prepare a PhD interview presentation if you’re proposing your own research topic . If you’re requested to do this, keep it brief, use at least 80% of the time they permit and base it around your research proposal.
• Paperwork – Bring two to three copies of your application form, and if applicable, your research proposal. Although in most cases your interviewers would have bought their own copy, it’s better to be on the safe side.
• Etiquette – If you’re unsure of what to wear to a PhD interview, a good general rule of thumb is to wear what you would to a formal job interview. In other words, keep it formal. Additionally, learn how to pronounce the names of the interviewers and any other staff members you may mention beforehand.
• Practice – There’s a lot of truth in the old saying ‘practice makes perfect’. You will want to practise as many PhD interview questions as you can. Don’t just limit yourself to the ones discussed on here. Find as many PhD questions as you can and prepare draft answers for all of them. In fact, you don’t even need to limit yourself to questions specifically for PhD students. There are many out there that, although written for generic academic interviews or the job market, will be applicable to you. If you find yourself short on resources, try searching for ‘tell us a time when you…’ in google as these will provide great scenario-based questions you can practise with.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

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