my phd supervisor

• What to Expect from your PhD Supervisor

Written by Mark Bennett

Your PhD supervisor will play a vital role in your doctorate, supporting you from starting out to thesis submission (and beyond).

But what does ‘PhD supervision’ actually mean in practice? What sort of support and assistance can you expect your supervisor to provide?

This guide introduces some of the obligations and expectations that underpin a healthy supervisory relationship, as well as explaining how that relationship develops along with your PhD.

What you can expect from your PhD supervisor

Your PhD supervisor will have some core responsibilities towards you and your project. These will normally include meeting to discuss your work, reading drafts and being available to respond emails and other forms of contact within a reasonable timeframe.

Some universities may formalise these commitments in a research degree handbook and you should consult this if so. Other universities may leave more of the details to the student and supervisor themselves.

In either case, the following are some of the basic expectations a PhD supervisor should fulfil:

Expertise in your subject area

Regular supervisory meetings, feedback on work in progress, advice and support, mediation and representation.

Your supervisor will be an expert in your academic field. They will have recognised experience researching it, with a publication record to match. They may even have supervised other students working on related subjects.

What your supervisor won’t be is an expert in your topic. There’s a very simple reason for this: if they were, you couldn’t research it as an original PhD.

In practice this means that you can expect your supervisor to offer competent advice, particularly in the early stages of your research. If you’re suggesting a topic or approach that has been undertaken before, they should be able to alert you to that. If you’re looking for material to consult for your literature review they will be able to make suggestions and help you get started.

Eventually though, your expertise will outstrip your supervisor’s. It’s important to be aware of this and not to rely on your supervisor to understand your project for you.

These are the nuts and bolts of a supervisory relationship. Whatever your project, you can expect your supervisor to set aside regular time for one-to-one meetings and discussion of your work.

How regular these meetings are will be up to you and your supervisor to decide (though your university may set some guidelines). You’ll also have the freedom to set up a schedule (and venue) that works for the two of you. This could be a corner of the lab, your supervisor’s office or even just a coffee shop on campus.

Once this schedule is agreed you can expect your supervisor to be available at appointed times and to have reviewed any drafts, data or other work sent to them (with sufficient notice).

Note that the ability to attend supervisory meetings is an expectation of full-time PhD students who are based ‘on campus’. If you are studying by distance learning your supervisor may arrange for a different format, such as discussing work over the phone or via video conferencing.

Your supervisor may also take responsibility for any formal record keeping associated with meetings (though that doesn’t mean you won’t have any paperwork of your own to fill out).

Unlike other degrees, a PhD doesn’t normally involve any ongoing formal assessment. There are some exceptions such as first-year upgrade exams and training modules, but, ultimately, your doctorate will be judged on the strength of a single piece of work: the thesis you submit for examination at the end.

So what happens to all the chapter drafts, data reports and other work you do along the way? Your supervisor looks at it and offers you feedback. This feedback is formative rather than summative (you won’t be given a grade) but it’s still incredibly important.

In the early stages of a PhD feedback will help ensure you’re on the right track (or get you onto it). Later on you’ll know more about your project than your supervisor, but they’ll still be able to tell you how effectively presented your results are and how persuasive your argument is.

Standards for feedback vary between disciplines, projects and universities. You may find that your supervisor regularly sees your data as part of the working arrangement in your laboratory. Or you may find that you only submit drafts of written work every few months.

Your university may set out its own feedback guidelines, but, as with so many aspects of the supervisory relationship, setting up an effective system will be down to the individuals involved. As a general rule, you can expect your supervisor to review each piece of work in progress at least once and to offer further feedback on the final dissertation draft.

Contact with your supervisor doesn’t need to be restricted to scheduled meetings. They should also be able to offer advice on a more ad hoc basis.

This won’t normally extend to immediate feedback on impromptu chapter drafts sent over at 3am on a Monday morning, but you can expect a response to questions or ideas emailed during office hours.

Remember that one of the key things a supervisor offers isn’t topic expertise (we covered that earlier) so much as research experience. You haven’t completed a PhD before. They have. That problem that seems insurmountable to you? It probably isn’t. And your supervisor will be able to help you see why.

‘Support’ can also extend beyond your PhD thesis and include additional academic opportunities. It’s not uncommon for supervisors to identify suitable conferences for their students to attend or present at. In some cases you may also have the chance to publish work alongside your supervisor or participate as a second author on one of their papers.

You should make the most of these opportunities if they arise, but it’s important not to treat them as a basic expectation. Unless otherwise established by your institution, your supervisor’s main commitment is to your PhD.

For most of your PhD, your supervisor will ‘represent’ the university to you. They’ll be your most frequent point of contact and will be responsible for ensuring you do the things your institution expects of you.

Those include the obvious (researching your PhD) but can also cover other areas such as professional development, progression monitoring and compliance with any ethical policies. You probably won’t find the associated paperwork to be the most thrilling part of your PhD, but can take heart from the fact that your supervisor will probably agree with you.

As well as representing the university to you, your supervisor will also represent you to the university. They’ll understand the peculiarities of your project, together with any specific needs or circumstances you have as a researcher (such as a disability or conditions associated with your funding ).

Your supervisor will therefore be your first point of call if problems arise with your project. It’s part of their role to provide pastoral support and you shouldn’t be afraid to approach them with problems or concerns.

Second supervisors

Some universities assign two supervisors to each PhD students. If so, the 'second' supervisor may be more responsible for your pastoral support and for the administration of your project. This allows the 'primary' supervisor to focus on your academic work.

Targets, planning and meetings

Your supervisor (or supervisors) will be involved throughout your PhD, but their function will change slightly as your doctorate progresses.

In part this will reflect your changing needs as a student. You’ll go from mapping out a project to researching, writing and eventually submitting for examination. This is all part of the normal PhD journey .

Planning your project and setting targets

Most PhDs begin with an initial meeting between the student and their supervisor. This will be your first chance to sit down together and discuss your project.

You’ll review the aims set out in your research proposal and think about how to proceed with the first stages of your doctorate. This normally means gathering scholarly material for your literature review and / or identifying initial avenues for your own research.

Your supervisor’s input will be invaluable here. You’ll probably have some idea of existing studies that relate to your topic. You may also have some idea of the sources you’d like to examine or the data you’d like to collect first.

But your supervisor will have a much more complete sense of the current state of your academic field. They’ll also know many of the other scholars currently working in it.

If there are some avenues you haven’t considered, they’ll be able to make suggestions. And if there’s new work being published, they’ll be able to make you aware of it.

What happens at a PhD supervision?

PhD Supervisions can be as varied as the supervisors (and PhD students) involved.

You may meet formally in an office, or you might simply grab a corner table in the campus coffee shop. Most meetings last from one to two hours, but this will depend on how much there is to discuss and what stage of the PhD you’re at.

A typical PhD supervision normally involves:

• Checking your current progress – Your supervisor will want to know what you’ve done since the last meeting and how you’ve been finding things. If you’ve hit upon difficulties you can discuss these and benefit from your supervisor’s advice.
• Reviewing work in progress – As you get further into your PhD you’ll begin to gather results or even produce chapter drafts. Your supervisor will normally be able to offer feedback on this and make sure you’re heading in the right direction. Their encouragement will be a big source of support, particularly as you begin to get properly stuck into your project.
• Setting future targets – Reflecting on what you’ve done will be an important part of your supervisions, but so will agreeing new short and medium term goals. There are few formal deadlines in a PhD, but setting some ‘self-imposed’ deadlines with your supervisor can help keep you on track.
• Taking care of any admin – Part of your supervisor’s job involves reporting your progress to the university. For structured PhDs this can also mean checking completion of any formal training and development activities.

Eventually, PhD supervision meetings will also focus upon more specific milestones in your doctorate.

A PhD supervisor by any other name...

You might occasionally see different terms to refer to a PhD supervisor, such as dissertation advisor, thesis advisor or doctoral supervisor. Most of the time, these will all refer to the same person (the academic who will support and advise you through your PhD).

Progression and professional development

As you enter the middle stretch of your PhD the relationship with your supervisor will shift slightly. You’ll still have regular meetings, but won’t be as dependent on them to help set targets, or reassure you that you’re heading in the right direction.

Instead your supervisor will be much more focussed on the work you’re producing – particularly as the embryonic version of your final thesis begins to take shape.

Part of this could involve supporting you as you formally ‘upgrade’ to full PhD candidacy (many universities initially register research students for an MPhil ).

Once this is done you’ll be confirmed as a junior scholar, with an original contribution to make to your field. This may therefore be the time to think about taking on additional development opportunities and earning more exposure for your work – another area in which your supervisor’s support will be important.

Reviewing drafts and checking results

By this point in your PhD the outline of your final project will probably be fairly well established. You’ll have done a lot of the research that will form the basis of your thesis. Eventually you’ll begin gathering in your findings and laying the foundations of your dissertation .

Your supervisor will help identify the point at which you’re ready to do this. From then on a big part of their role will be to help review your findings as you move towards the final stretch of your doctorate.

If you’re in the Arts and Humanities this process may involve drafting actual chapters of your dissertation and receiving feedback on them. The writing usually comes later for STEM students, but you’ll still discuss the results of experiments and / or confirm that your data is up to the required standard.

Assisting your professional development

As your project progresses so will your expertise. The primary outlet for that expertise will be your thesis.

But the second and third years of your PhD are also an important period for your professional development – particularly if you’re considering an academic career.

Now is the time to think about:

• Conference presentations
• Scholarly publications
• Teaching work

Most supervisors will be happy to support their students at this point – and will take pride in seeing them step up to the academic stage (or at least the front of the conference hall). Some universities may also make professional development a formal part of their PhD programmes – particularly when it comes to undergraduate teaching.

Submission and examination

Eventually, it will be time to gather up your results, write up your thesis and submit it as a dissertation. The way you do this can vary between projects.

If you’re in the Arts or Humanities you’ll probably have been producing chapter drafts alongside your research and your supervisor will already have provided feedback on them.

If you’re in Science or Engineering you’ll probably have been focussed on conducting experiments and gathering results, with a dedicated ‘writing up period’ at the end of your degree.

Whatever your approach, your supervisor will help you put together a final version of your thesis. They will then read through that draft and provide any feedback or advice. Once your supervisor decides that your dissertation is up to the required standard they will advise you to submit it for examination.

Most universities will allow you to submit against the advice of your supervisors, but this is almost always a bad idea. If your supervisor does not believe a thesis is ready for examination it probably isn’t. Vice versa, your supervisor won’t recommend you submit unless the thesis is likely to pass a viva.

Selecting external examiners

Having guided you up to the submission point your supervisor has one final task to perform: helping you select the external examiner (or examiners) for your viva voce.

This may seem quite minor, but it can actually be one of the most important contributions a supervisor will make to your PhD.

Some universities allow supervisors to invite and appoint external examiners themselves, but this is relatively uncommon in the UK. Instead you will normally have the chance to suggest examiners and will have the final say over who is invited to examine you.

By this point you may have a good idea of who might be a good external examiner – particularly if you’ve been active at conferences and networked within your field. But you should make sure you take advice from your supervisor at this crucial point.

Not only will they know who in your field is best placed to examine your work, they will also know who is most likely to appreciate it. All PhD examinations are objective, but academia can be home to diverse methodologies and approaches. Selecting an examiner with very different principles to your own can make the viva much more challenging for both parties and put extra pressure on your thesis defence.

In most cases a supervisor isn’t directly involved in the actual viva voce exam that concludes your PhD.

They will have reviewed your thesis and helped you select your examiners (see above). They will also meet with you on the day of the viva and provide support as you get ready for the exam. This could simply involve finding the venue and waiting with you as your examiners arrive. Or it could mean calming a few last minute nerves and helping you relax before the event.

Once the viva is over your supervisor may be invited to discuss the result with the panel before you yourself receive feedback. This may allow them to provide some perspective on any areas of concern, but such contributions are usually off the record. Your examiners will be making a decision based on your thesis defence, not your supervisor’s.

Looking for a PhD?

Head over to our course listings to search PhD opportunities all over the world.

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

You may also like....

What happens during a typical PhD, and when? We've summarised the main milestones of a doctoral research journey.

The PhD thesis is the most important part of a doctoral degree. This page will introduce you to what you need to know about the PhD dissertation.

This page will give you an idea of what to expect from your routine as a PhD student, explaining how your daily life will look at you progress through a doctoral degree.

Our guide tells you everything about the application process for studying a PhD in the USA.

Is your supervisor moving universities? Or have you discovered another doctoral programme that better suits your goals? In this guide we take a look at how you can transfer a PhD to another university.

Ever wondered how hard is a PhD? Our guide can help you learn the level of a PhD compared to Masters study, what hurdles make a PhD hard, and why they occur.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

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

Select your nearest city

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

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

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

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

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

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

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

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.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Bringing Out the Best in the PhD Student–Supervisor Relationship

Once you decide to embark on your PhD journey, one of the most important decisions is choosing a PhD thesis supervisor. Every research student grapples with the question of “How to find a PhD supervisor”, more so if they are dealing with physical disabilities or mental health issues. The final choice determines not only the success and quality of your research but also your well-being throughout the program.

Table of Contents

Qualities of a good PhD supervisor

Wondering how to choose a PhD supervisor or what to ask a potential PhD supervisor? Here are the key roles that your supervisor can (and should) play:

Bridging cultural differences

A good supervisor will do their best to make a student comfortable if they are in an unfamiliar geographical and/or cultural setting. They should help a student overcome barriers or biases faced if they’re part of a minority group. When finding a PhD supervisor, see if they make you feel at home and eager to start work.

Supporting students with physical or mental disabilities

When looking at how to choose a PhD supervisor, look for one who will advise how PhD students with disabilities can work effectively by suggesting suitable adjustments or flexibility. Awareness about neurodiversity is on the rise and it is one of the things that should be on your list of what to ask a potential PhD supervisor. Supervisors are becoming increasingly sensitive and more equipped to handle students’ emotional barriers such as lack of motivation, impostor syndrome, and fear of failure.

Navigating administrative and regulatory affairs

If you are new to the institute, system, or country, find a PhD supervisor who can guide you regarding university protocols and regulations, administrative and technical support, etc.

Choose a PhD supervisor who will help connect you with other researchers and forge collaborations and connections to further your research and career.

Being approachable and open to communication

When figuring out how to find a PhD supervisor, it is most important that you choose one who will be available and easy to contact.

Stimulating intellectual growth

An encouraging supervisor should throw challenges at you. They should encourage you to think out of the box and not follow the beaten path.

How to choose a good PhD supervisor

Now that you know the kind of support you can expect, here are some tips on how to choose a good PhD supervisor for your doctoral journey.

Read recent publications by potential supervisors

Check if their area of research is a match with yours and if their experience and expertise align with what you are looking for.

Talk to past and current students

Get an idea about the lab culture and ask about a potential PhD supervisor’s approach to students with disabilities and students from minority communities.

Meet in person if possible

Get to know the personality of your potential supervisor and understand their availability and commitment better. Inform them about any physical or mental health issues and ask your potential PhD supervisor about arrangements to manage these conditions.

Maximizing support and assistance from your supervisor

Your relationship with your PhD guide is not a one-way street. We just discussed the qualities of a good PhD supervisor and how to choose a good PhD supervisor. But how can  you  make sure that your guide will be happy to help you?

Identify specific needs

If you are managing a disability or chronic illness, here’s what you should do and what to ask a potential PhD supervisor:

• Be upfront with your supervisor and discuss any likely effects of your condition in advance.
• Ask a potential PhD supervisor about resources applicable to your particular condition (e.g., software to assist students with visual difficulties, communication aids, or additional financial support as a disabled student).
• Work with your supervisor to draw up a realistic plan for conducting and monitoring your project to help keep your research on track.

  Be honest

One key tip on how to find a PhD supervisor is to be transparent about your work and progress. Do not hide any inadvertent errors you may have made in your experiment or analyses. Always keep your supervisor “in the loop”! Honesty in every aspect of your work and working relationship will help build trust.

Be realistic

Ask your potential PhD supervisor about and align your expectations for work and a work-life balance with them. Set realistic expectations and targets; this will be even more important if health challenges are likely to affect your work pace. Your supervisor can then manage expectations and support your progress in the face of these challenges.

Be independent

No supervisor encourages hand holding. When choosing a PhD supervisor, you must demonstrate independence to inculcate your supervisor’s trust in you. Here are some ways you could to this:

• Meet agreed deadlines and responsibilities as best you can.
• Show that you have worked on feedback they have provided.
• Offer your help on projects, especially if it helps you learn a new skill. Inform your supervisor that you are open to providing assistance with peer review, for example.

Knowing what to ask a potential PhD supervisor combined with a demonstration of responsibility

When choosing a Phd supervisor, know that your supervisor may be simultaneously running many projects. Different students might be at different stages of their PhD, and it is up to the supervisor how to manage each student’s requirements. Trust their approach on this.

Have open conversations

Have regular meetings with your supervisor (every week or 10 days) to discuss your research progress, drafts of upcoming papers, and even emotional roadblocks if any. Understand their working and communication style and adapt accordingly.

Have open conversations about your state of mind; your supervisor is sure to hear you out and offer guidance and motivation.

To conclude

Answering the question of how to find a PhD supervisor may take some effort and time. Moreover, arriving at a comfortable working arrangement with your chosen supervisor may also take some fine-tuning. You should strive to streamline your working style to motivate your supervisor to help you.

Choose a good PhD supervisor who will offer support beyond academic aspects for your overall welfare. That being said, recognize that your supervisor is not your de facto counsellor. You may even leverage other support systems (support groups, online forums, or professional counsellors) to complement the guidance and motivation provided by your supervisor.

Related Posts

How to Make a Graphical Abstract for Your Research Paper (with Examples)

Simple Random Sampling: Definition, Methods, and Examples

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

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

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

View all partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheap labour

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

The “ghost supervisor”

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

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

Collateral damage

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

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

Creepy crawlers

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

Captivate and con

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

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

Colleague in training

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

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

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

Project Manager

Management Information Systems & Analytics – Limited Term Contract

Publications Manager

Audience Insight Officer

Director, Student Administration

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

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

Managing up: how to communicate effectively with your PhD adviser

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

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

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Related Articles

Why you need an agenda for meetings with your principal investigator

• Research management

Maggie Aderin-Pocock on diversity: ‘It’s hard to find an argument against it’

Career Q&A 12 JUL 24

The Spinoff Prize 2024

Outlook 11 JUL 24

How PhD students and other academics are fighting the mental-health crisis in science

News Feature 09 JUL 24

How can I break into industry if my CV keeps disappearing into a black hole?

Career Feature 08 JUL 24

‘All things that wander in the heavens’: how I swapped my ivory tower for the world of science fiction

Career Q&A 04 JUL 24

Is your research a trade secret? South Korean data-sharing case is a wake-up call

World View 03 JUL 24

To regain lost public trust, incorporate research ethics into graduate training

Correspondence 02 JUL 24

What it means to be a successful male academic

Career Column 26 JUN 24

Faculty Positions at SUSTech School of Medicine

SUSTech School of Medicine offers equal opportunities and welcome applicants from the world with all ethnic backgrounds.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Southern University of Science and Technology, School of Medicine

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research Sanford Research invites applications for full-time faculty at the rank of...

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sanford Research

Postdoctoral Researcher - Schmidt AI in Science Fellow

The University of Toronto now recruiting for the Eric and Wendy Schmidt AI in Science Postdoctoral Fellowship. Valued at $85,000 CDN per year.

Toronto (City), Ontario (CA)

University of Toronto (U of T)

Associate or Senior Editor (Quantum Physics and Quantum Technologies)

To help us to build on the success of this journal, we’re seeking a researcher with a background in quantum physics.

London or Madrid – hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Five industrial PhD students to the Research School in Future Silviculture

We are looking for five industrial PhD students to join the Research School in Future Silviculture at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

Umeå, Uppsala

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

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

Quick links

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

Choosing the right PhD supervisor for you

Choosing the right phd supervisor.

This is advice we’ve collected for students who have decided that a PhD is the right path for them, are aiming to do impactful research and seeking an academic supervisor.

This post does not cover whether or not you should be doing a PhD. If you’re unsure whether to pursue a PhD, you might find useful advice in our post on testing your fit for a research career instead. You could also apply for our coaching for more personalised advice.

• The supervisor-supervisee relationship will probably have a big impact on your experience of getting a PhD, your development, and your prospects after your PhD. Your supervisor will likely be your primary mentor for several years, so it’s worth investing time in finding a good match.
• You could find a supervisor through reading academic papers, being on academic twitter, looking at university faculty webpages, talking to students and academics, networking at conferences or via our database of potential supervisors.
• Key factors to consider when finding a supervisor include their research expertise, supervision style and academic reputation. Also consider the  departmental/lab community you would be joining.

We’re sharing this advice because:

• We want to support impact-oriented students, who have decided a PhD is the right path for them, to make good decisions when finding a supervisor.

In the process of writing this advice we received feedback from a number of people based on their PhD experiences; thanks to Caspar Oesterheld, Matt Coleman, Vivian Belenky, Bill Wildi, Linda Linsefors, Adrià Garriga-Alonso and Jaime Sevilla for their valuable feedback and ideas. Contributors to this post didn’t necessarily review or agree with all points made, and all errors remain our own.

How important is finding the right PhD supervisor?

Your supervisor will likely be your main point of contact for academic support during your PhD. The quality of your relationship and your supervisor’s availability, style of supervision and alignment with your goals will probably make a big difference to your experience – in terms of your wellbeing, whether you’re supported to do the research you want, and even whether you complete your PhD.

Your supervisor’s research skills will likely also affect your own development as a researcher. This paper ( see the summary here ) finds that supervisors who produce prize-winning academic research seem to increase the chance their supervisees go on to do the same; ‘students who studied under a future prizewinner were almost six times more likely to become superstars in their field than equally talented students of non-prizewinners.’

When should you search for a supervisor?

Universities often expect that students will identify and connect with a specific supervisor before formally applying for a PhD. Even if you’re applying to a programme that involves spending a year or two doing classes before choosing a research focus and supervisor, it’s still useful to reach out to check if the supervisor(s) on the programme seem like a good fit for you. Anecdotally, your application is also more likely to be accepted if a supervisor is already excited about working with you. 

Before you reach out, check there’s no rule against reaching out written on the supervisor’s profile or programme webpage, as some universities and programmes have a rule against students contacting supervisors before formally applying.

There are many guides online if you want to see the steps typically involved in finding a PhD programme in different countries, for example this and this overview for the UK, this guide for the USA or this series about PhD study in various countries.

Factors to consider when searching for a supervisor

In addition to considerations like location and funding availability, here are some key factors that might be useful to gather information on during the process of finding a supervisor.

The supervisor’s research expertise

Working with a supervisor and research group with particularly strong research skills and a strong track record is very helpful if you want to stay in research long term (if you’re pursuing a PhD primarily for credentials, it is likely not quite such an important factor). Looking at the h -index of supervisors you’re considering, reading research papers yourself and considering the opinions of other academics are some ways of getting a general sense of this. 

In terms of specific expertise, while it’s certainly helpful if your supervisor or research group has a good understanding of the topic or concept you want to study, strong expertise in a methodology you want to master may be more important to your development as a researcher, as long as they are receptive to your topic. Having a secondary supervisor with strong expertise in the specific topic or concept you want to study, as well as a primary supervisor with expertise in the methodology you want to use, can be a good way to balance this, although programmes and supervisors will have different policies on this.

Researchers and research teams will also have their own ideologies that you will likely need to adopt to some extent in your own research, so look at some of their research and check if the approach resonates with you when deciding if they would be a good fit.

The supervisor’s and university’s academic reputation

Particularly if you want to pursue an academic career, a supervisor’s academic reputation and research success is also worth considering because the reputation of your supervisor will affect how a letter of recommendation from them is received if you apply for academic or postdoc positions after your PhD. For careers outside of academia, such as policy and public-facing roles, having attended a top university is also particularly likely to be useful.

Style of supervision

Consider what style of supervision would work well for you – how independently or intensively do you want to work, for example? When talking to a potential supervisor or students who have worked with them, you might want to ask about the supervisor’s interpersonal style, what their expectations are of students, and how ‘hands on’ or ‘hands off’ they are ( this post goes into more detail about the different dimensions you could consider regarding the latter point).

You can make some guesses about these factors before meeting potential supervisors or students. For example, if an academic is earlier in their career, their progression will depend on supervising students , so there’s generally a greater incentive for them to be more engaged as a supervisor and to graduate students quickly. More established academics often have wider research interests and allow supervisees more autonomy and flexibility.

As well as the style of support that will suit you in the near-term, consider what will help you achieve your long-term goals. Particularly if you may want a career in research, it’s useful to have a supervisor who will encourage you to publish, so you could check whether they have a track record of publishing with students and whether the papers are published in respected journals. If you’re largely doing a PhD because the credentials will further your career, you may generally want to seek out less time-intensive and challenging PhD experience.

Your impression of the departmental or laboratory community

The research community you join will likely also affect your wellbeing and development as a researcher. If you’re in a collaborative setting, postdocs and more experienced PhDs may play a key role in providing informal supervision, which might be particularly relevant if you want to work with a supervisor who has limited availability.

If you’re seriously considering a PhD programme, try to talk to students and postdocs you’d be working with to get a sense of the culture you’d be joining. You could also look at alumni’s careers, the research of current students and the ranking of the university to try to gauge how the environment would help you develop as a researcher. If you want to learn more about university rankings and what aspects of them are relevant to PhD students, check out this article from findaphd and see the Times world university rankings and QS World University Rankings .

Finding potential supervisors

Where to look.

If you’re looking for a potential supervisor, you may find it helpful to:

• apply to access our database of potential supervisors working in the research directions we recommend .
• network at conferences and lectures.
• look through the department faculty webpages of universities that meet your location preferences and/or that are the top universities for your research area.
• ask PhD students and academics working in your preferred research direction for recommendations. Professors at your university may be willing to leverage their own network to help you, and academics involved in EA may also be willing to help.
• read the abstracts of research articles, papers, and recently submitted dissertations relevant to your interests and note down the authors whose work you particularly like. This step can also be useful to increase the chance of a successful application later.
• follow academics doing relevant research on ‘academic twitter’ (i.e. the informal network of academics who use twitter to discuss research, opportunities and experiences). This can be useful for seeing recent papers and discussions, learning about open PhD positions, and getting some insight into potential supervisors.
• do a database search to find researchers who have produced highly cited and relevant publications. Options include Web of Science , Scopus , Dimensions , Semantic Scholar and Research Rabbit . You could also use Elicit , an AI research assistant. 

When you find a potential supervisor you’re interested in, check whether they are accepting students during the upcoming application cycle before investing more effort. Consider keeping a spreadsheet of the programmes and supervisors you’re interested in, with relevant factors (e.g. location, research fit and funding) to help you narrow options down. When you start reaching out to supervisors, this will also help you follow up 1-2 weeks later if you have a record of who you contacted, as well as keeping track of application deadlines. (If you do this, we’d love to see the results! Please send them to us here ).

Contacting potential supervisors

Writing an initial email.

Below are some tips for reaching out to potential supervisors.

Do your research

Before you contact supervisors, check whether their university profile has relevant information about their availability or details about whether and how they want to be contacted. Assistant and associate professors are particularly likely to be seeking students. If their profile doesn’t say they are seeking students, check this with them briefly before sending a longer email.

Academics get a lot of emails, so make your email easy to engage with.

• Use a subject line that makes it clear why you’re reaching out (e.g. ‘initial enquiry about PhD opportunities for Sept 2021’)
• Keep it short -– a couple of paragraphs is usually enough.

Briefly but clearly describe your goals

Explain the research question you want to answer, why you believe it’s important, and, if possible, how your previous research connects to it and how it would fit into the broader picture of your goals. You’ll stand out more if you’re sincerely trying to answer an open research question in your field. However, if there’s some flexibility in your interests then mention this too – it might increase the likelihood the supervisor will be open to working with you.

Be informative

You should generally also include:

• your qualifications.
• that you’re emailing regarding a specific opportunity if this is the case.
• your funding status, for example if you’ve already secured external funding or are planning to apply for funding.

Build connection

• Check the supervisor’s title (e.g. Professor/Dr) and use it in the first email (after that it’s fine to follow their lead).
• Say if you were referred by a current/former student, saw them give a talk or have read their research.
• Explain why you are interested in working with them (and ideally how their recent research connects to your topic).
• Offer to schedule a call if the supervisor wants to discuss things further (or ask if they’re open to a call if you want to meet with them). Use a tool such as Calendly to make scheduling easier.

If you don’t hear back

We suggest sending a check-in email 1-2 weeks later, and then it’s best to move on. Not hearing back doesn’t mean you got anything wrong – academics usually get more emails than they can keep on top of.

Meeting potential supervisors

If you arrange a meeting with a potential supervisor, you could ask them if they want to see your research proposal (if relevant) prior to the meeting (this will also give you the chance to ask for feedback during the meeting).

Potentially useful topics to discuss include:

• how much contact they have with students they supervise.
• how much collaboration occurs between their supervisees.
• what they expect from the students they supervise (e.g. is there a certain number of papers students need to publish? What work hours do they expect?).
• the extent to which they let students choose topics themselves.
• what characteristics they consider important in supervisees.
• your knowledge of your own working style and goals, and whether they feel you would be a good fit for each other.
• what topics they would be most excited to have a PhD working on, to give you the opportunity to better tailor your formal application to these interests if they overlap with yours.
• whether they have suggestions of things you should do to supplement your PhD or whether there are professional development opportunities they encourage.
• whether they have feedback on your proposal, if they saw this before meeting.
• whether having a secondary/external supervisor is something they would potentially be supportive of, if secondary supervision is something you think you will need.
• if there might be funding available from them, or whether you will need to seek external funding (and any sources they recommend).
• whether they’re intending to stay at the university for several years (e.g. whether they have a sabbatical planned) and what would happen if they moved institutions during your PhD.
• whether they can connect you with some of their current PhD students.
• whether there is a project you could work on with them as a way of testing fit. This can provide particularly strong evidence of your ability, as it enables the supervisor to observe your work directly, and it gives you additional opportunities to learn more about whether the supervisor and broader environment would be a good fit for you.

Experiences of other students

If you’re seriously considering a particular supervisor/lab, we suggest contacting some current or former students to ask them about their experiences (you might find students’ names on the lab’s, department’s or supervisor’s webpage). Although meeting with supervisors can be very useful, we suggest giving more weight to students’ experiences of what it is like to be a researcher in the lab or to be supervised by the academic you are considering.

Potentially useful topics include:

• the supervisor’s interpersonal style.
• how available the supervisor is and what kind of support they offer.
• the work culture (e.g. how collaborative it is).
• how much autonomy students have in deciding what to work on.
• expectations of students, for example regarding work hours.

Finding a secondary supervisor

Much of the advice above will be applicable to a search for either a primary or secondary supervisor. If you find a researcher who seems like a great fit as your supervisor but can’t be a primary supervisor, take note – they may be willing to be a secondary supervisor if you need one, or collaborate with you at some stage of your PhD.

If you feel support from a secondary supervisor is necessary, discuss this with your primary supervisor first, to check they are supportive in principle.

Finding a secondary supervisor can be particularly helpful if:

• there’s some aspect of your topic or approach with which your supervisor or research group isn’t very familiar or aligned (which is more likely if you’re working on a topic that is relatively neglected).
• you intend to work on an interdisciplinary topic and having a secondary supervisor from a different disciplinary background would be useful.

Some suggestions for finding secondary supervision or mentorship are:

• applying for our coaching , so we can connect you with relevant researchers.
• reaching out to academics in our list of potential supervisors .

Finding further advice

We think it’s valuable to seek out additional advice tailored to your situation (e.g. that’s specific to your location, discipline and the research direction you’re interested in).

Here are a few ways to get further advice:

• Apply to our coaching and we’ll help you reflect on your plans and connect you with experienced researchers who can advise you further.
• Apply to our online community of students. We can also introduce you to students we think you’re particularly likely to find helpful to talk to.
• Email people who are where you would like to be in a few years in their careers, and ask if they are willing to talk to you. We think most people don’t reach out to others enough for this kind of advice, but many people are happy to share their experiences. Check out this Clearer Thinking podcast episode for a brief discussion of how to increase the value of these conversations.

Good luck with your search! 

We’d like to hear more about people’s experiences and tips for finding and working with supervisors (and academics’ experiences of supervising students!). If you want to suggest changes or additions to this advice, please reach out to us . Thanks!

Read next: Tips for writing a successful PhD application →

Subscribe to the Topic Discovery Digest

Subscribe to our Topic Discovery Digest to find thesis topics, tools and resources that can help you significantly improve the world.

Apply for coaching

Want to work on one of the research directions we recommend? Apply for coaching to receive personalised guidance.

Tips for writing a successful PhD application

Applying for a PhD program? Here is our advice on putting together a great application. 

Sign up to access our database of potential supervisors

Sign up for access to our database of potential supervisors who work on the research directions we recommend.

Funding database

Find funding for your PhD on one of our recommended research directions.

Effective Thesis

Privacy policy

Stay in touch

Are you interested in applying for coaching or to our other services in future? Stay in touch and get our quarterly updates by signing up to our newsletter!

Community Blog

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

10 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor

• By Eduardo D. S.
• August 1, 2020

So you want to find out how to impress a PhD supervisor? Maybe you’re about to contact them about a potential project, perhaps you already have a meeting scheduled with them, or maybe you’re already one of their PhD students but you want to leave a lasting impression. Whatever your reasons, learning the correct way to impress a PhD supervisor can do wonders for building a great relationship and increasing your chances of success not only in your project but also in opening doors for your future career development.

Based on my own experiences, I’m going to share 10 of the best ways to impress a supervisor – 5 for before they agree to take you on, and 5 for when you become one of their PhD students.

5 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor Before They Agree to Supervise You

1. communicate clearly.

PhD supervisors are busy people, they receive countless emails every day from panicked students, colleagues chasing up peer-reviews, and potential PhD candidates like yourself. When you first contact a potential supervisor, stick to sending them a brief email. Note the brief there. Specify who you are, your educational background, that you are interested in their project, why you are interested in their project, and include a copy of your resume.

You can find a good breakdown of how to structure your first email here – How to Email a Potential PhD Supervisor . Whichever approach you take, the key is to keep it concise.

2. Be Knowledgeable About Your Field

All supervisors want a research student who’s knowledgeable and well-read in their field, as they tend to produce higher-quality work and encounter fewer problems. Although no one expects you to be an expert, make sure you have at least read three of the most popular journal publications in your chosen research area.

3. Research Them

Looking up the supervisor will give you an insight into their research interests, what topics they’re currently researching, and whether they’ve made any notable contributions, be it a publication, a book or a talk at a leading conference. Your goal isn’t to flatter them, but to be able to clearly explain how your project applies to them and why you would like them to be your supervisor. For example, you might pick up on the fact that the supervisor has recently published several papers or attended a number of conferences on a particular subject. Proposing a project closely linked to this area is likely to attract their attention more than a project in a subject which they haven’t published on for several years.

4. Have a Long-Term Plan

Know what you want to research, why you want to research it, and what you want to do after having completed your research.

A PhD is an enormous commitment – it can take up to 8 years, be financially challenging and mentally exhausting. A supervisor will want to reassure themselves that you genuinely believe a PhD is for you, as having a student struggle the entire way through, or worse, drop out altogether, isn’t good for any involved. Spend some time reading up on the common challenges you can expect as a PhD student and determining what your career goals are. Being able to demonstrate an awareness for both of these will help convince the supervisor that your consideration for doing a PhD is a rational one.

5. Have a Project Plan

If you have the opportunity to discuss a project in more detail with a supervisor, keep in mind that not all first interactions will be simple introductory meetings.

Some supervisors like to jump straight in and discuss your proposed project, your methodology, how you plan to collect data, what kinds of challenges you think you may encounter, etc. Answering these questions in detail will show you’re serious about the project. You don’t necessarily need to have all the right answers here but it’s more about showing that you’ve thought about these aspects and do so from a logical standpoint. In contrast, not having well-thought-out answers will give a poor impression of your level of commitment and/or ability.

If you’ve been asked to submit a research proposal as part of your application, you can almost guarantee a large part of your meeting is going to focus on the technical aspects of the project.

5 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor After They Agree to Supervise You

It’s natural to want to impress your supervisor, but remember, if they’ve already agreed to supervise you, they’re already impressed with your academic background and research potential. In truth, most supervisors are never more impressed with their students than on the day they receive their doctorate, with all the years of independent research, publications, and hard word work paying off.

If you still want to take a few extra steps to impress your supervisor, here are 5 things you can do during your PhD studies that will get noticed:

6. Be Proactive

Plan your work, commit to your agreed schedule, and fulfil all your obligations. Nothing makes a supervisor happier than an active student taking full responsibility for his or her project. Being proactive assures your supervisor that your project will advance in the right direction, and when you do need support, it’s for genuine issues that warrant their time.

Being a talented researcher isn’t only about being able to conduct research, but also about being able to do so independently. Showing them that you’re capable of this won’t only keep them looking forward to their next meeting, but it will also give them a high level of confidence in your long-term potential.

7. Document, document, document

It happens occasionally – you get a little complacent, or you’re unusually tired that day – and you don’t label your samples or record your results with a high level of care. No matter the excuse, that’s poor practice and will make it harder for yourself when writing up your thesis, or for your supervisor when trying to discuss your results with them.

One of the simplest ways to impress your supervisor (or any fellow researcher for that matter) is to document everything clearly and systematically. This can range from creating a detailed spreadsheet to keeping a frequently updated LATEX file .

Regardless of how you document your work, stick to a single system and make it so detailed that anyone can pick up and continue your research without having to ask for clarification.

8. Network and Promote Your Research

For creating opportunities in the world of research, nothing is more influential than your reputation. Networking with other researchers within and outside of your university and promoting your work through conferences, events and journal publications improves not only your reputation but also that of your supervisors as a likely co-author. This will help them increase the reach of their work, secure new research grants and be considered for future collaborations.

However, it should be stressed that you mustn’t overstep your bounds – especially when it comes to unfinished work or areas of new potential research. Sharing something your supervisor hasn’t yet wanted to make public is the quickest way to go from impressing to annoying them.

9. Help Them

Supervisors are busy individuals, with a schedule full of lectures, lab sessions, department meetings, plus their own research.

You can earn the gratitude of your supervisor by helping them with some of their tasks, such as offering to host a tutorial on their behalf or setting up the lab for their next demonstration. You can also extend your help to new PhD students who join your research group by acting as a mentor and guiding them through the early challenges of doctoral studies, such as explaining how to order equipment or who to talk to for certain lab requirements.

Supervisors appreciate this type of action as it creates a friendly and collaborative environment for the research group for which they are ultimately responsible for.

10. Clean up After Yourself

You shouldn’t need to be told about this, but it’s surprising how many research students fail to clean up after themselves after having completed laboratory work. This not only goes against laboratory policy , but it gives a poor impression of your research group, which is especially important when you consider the fact you are likely sharing the facilities with staff members who are colleagues of your supervisor.

Cleaning up after yourself shows you respect your colleagues and your workplace and suggests that you have a high personal standard which is always commendable in the eyes of a supervisor. Besides, it’s not that difficult to discard your samples, wipe down your surfaces and record all perishable items that need to be refilled at the end of each day.

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

So there you have it, 10 ways to build a good working relationship with your supervisor.

In the same way that a supervisor takes you on as a student, you’re also taking them on as a supervisor, so the relationship must work both ways for it to be successful. I strongly encourage you, in your first meetings with a potential supervisor, to get a sense of whether your personalities are complementary or whether you think there’s a clash. Try to find out what kind of character your supervisor has before joining their research group (e.g. whether they’re a hands-on supervisor or whether they’re a laid back one); if you do this right, most of my tips will fall into place naturally without you having to try.

This article will answer common questions about the PhD synopsis, give guidance on how to write one, and provide my thoughts on samples.

An abstract and introduction are the first two sections of your paper or thesis. This guide explains the differences between them and how to write them.

You’ve impressed the supervisor with your PhD application, now it’s time to ace your interview with these powerful body language tips.

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

Browse PhDs Now

Reference management software solutions offer a powerful way for you to track and manage your academic references. Read our blog post to learn more about what they are and how to use them.

Stay up to date with current information being provided by the UK Government and Universities about the impact of the global pandemic on PhD research studies.

Nathan is about to enter the 2nd year of his PhD at the University of Hertfordshire. His research looks at how lifestyle stresses can impact skin barrier biophysics and skin barrier and oral cavity biochemistry and microbiology.

Prof Mair gained her PhD in cognitive neuroscience from Bournemouth University in 2004. She is now a consultant working with the fashion industry and published her book in 2018.

Join Thousands of Students

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

Tress Academic

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

May 14, 2019 by Tress Academic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here are our five pillars of good PhD supervision:

1. Guidance

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

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

2. Expertise

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

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

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

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

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

4. Regular interaction

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

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

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

4.1. Supervisory meetings

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

4.2. Spontaneous encounters

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

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

5. Advice on progress

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

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

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

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

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

How good is your supervision?

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

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

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

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

Related resources:

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

More information: 

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

© 2019 Tress Academic

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

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

A Guide to Changing Your PhD Supervisor

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

A. Alignment of Research Interests

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

B. Better Mentorship and Support

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

C. Diverse Perspectives

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

D. Career Opportunities

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

E. Personal Growth

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

A. Disruption in Progress

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

B. Administrative Hassles

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

C. Limited Options

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

D. Potential for Miscommunication

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

E. Impact on Relationships

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

1. Choose the Right Time and Setting:

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

2. Be Prepared:

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

3. Start Positively:

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

4. Be Honest and Direct:

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

5. Highlight Your Goals:

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

6. Express Gratitude:

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

7. Offer Solutions:

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

8. Be Open to Discussion:

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

9. Follow Up in Writing:

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

10. Maintain Professionalism:

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

Sample Script:

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

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

Email Template to Convey Your Decision to Change Supervisor

Subject: Request for a Meeting to Discuss Research Direction

Dear [Supervisor’s Name],

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Program/Department]

[Your Contact Information]

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

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

Upcoming Events

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

Recent Posts

• 05 Quick Review, High Impact, Best Research Journals for Submissions for July 2024
• Top Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Research Paper
• Average Stipend for Research/Academic Internships
• These Institutes Offer Remote Research/Academic Internships
• How to Include Your Journal in the UGC-CARE List? A Guide for Publishers
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• Log in
• Site search

Choosing your PhD supervisor

After deciding on a topic for your Doctoral research project, it's now time to find a PhD supervisor - take the time to make the right choice, as they'll become crucial to your academic future

Most PhD students' choice of university is heavily influenced by the opportunity to work alongside a particular academic, as they're the person who'll have the biggest impact on your studies.

While it's possible to apply to an institution without contacting a potential supervisor beforehand, this approach can greatly diminish your chances of Doctoral success.

PhD candidates in many social sciences and arts and humanities subjects are encouraged to actively seek expert academics in their field prior to applying. However, some research projects - particularly those in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects tied to a PhD studentship - already have a supervisor allocated.

How do I find a PhD supervisor?

You should identify academics actively researching in your field by:

• approaching lecturers working within your current or potential department, as these individuals may be able to recommend supervisors
• browsing articles, publications and blogs relevant to your project, identifying the most commonly cited researchers
• reading recently submitted PhD dissertations within your research area, noting the supervisor used.

Once you've compiled a shortlist of individuals, visit their online academic profiles - for example, their page on the university website or their own website/blog. You can also follow their social media activity on Twitter (X), Facebook and LinkedIn.

This will signpost you to the articles, blogs, books and reports they've contributed to, plus any exhibitions, public engagement work or PhD research they've participated in - allowing you to decide whether they're a suitable fit, academically speaking.

How do I approach a potential supervisor?

You can then approach your selected potential supervisor (or several, if you're still deciding) with a tailored, well-written and passionate email. Make a positive first impression by:

• attaching your academic CV
• avoiding overstatements or vague generalisations, while keeping your message clear and concise
• conveying your skills and knowledge by introducing your academic background and the field you intend to research
• referring to the academic by their correct title
• showing your familiarity with and interest in the academic's work
• letting them know about any funding you're applying for.

Conclude your message by asking whether you could visit them in person, or at the very least speak over the phone or via Skype/Zoom/Teams. If you receive no response within two weeks, send a follow-up email.

Don't take any rejection personally. The academic may simply be too busy, already supervising several PhD students, or unsure whether your project is suitable.

How do I make a good impression?

If an academic agrees to meet you, they'll want to know whether you have the passion, tenacity and academic potential to complete a PhD.

You can also display your enthusiasm by asking your supervisor relevant questions, such as:

• How far do you see your responsibilities towards me extending?
• How much time would you have for me, and how often would we meet?
• What arrangements, if any, would be in place for a second supervisor?
• What characteristics do you feel successful PhD students have?
• What do you expect from the students you supervise?
• What funding and additional support is available at this institution?
• What is your opinion of my research topic and proposed methodology?
• What things should I do to supplement my PhD?

What qualities does a good supervisor possess?

Before deciding whether a PhD supervisor is right for you and applying to your chosen institution, you should be certain that the individual is:

• not intending to leave the institution permanently or go on sabbatical during your PhD
• of a similar personality and working style to you
• reliable and approachable, with a strong track record of supervising PhD students
• someone you're inspired by and proud to associate with
• sufficiently interested in and enthusiastic about your project to commit three to four years of their guidance, support and encouragement
• up to date in their knowledge of the latest findings and publications within your field and has strong connections within the world of academia.

How do I develop a positive relationship with my supervisor?

Your PhD supervisor will become your primary referee once you've graduated. Forging a strong relationship with them can greatly improve your chances of securing a postdoctoral job .

You can make a positive impression by performing many of the extra tasks expected of you - for example, teaching undergraduates, mentoring other postgraduates and representing the university at research conferences.

The University of Leicester recommends that you should also:

• be open and honest
• display independence and an ability to manage problems
• maintain regular contact
• meet agreed deadlines
• show a positive and professional attitude
• understand your mutual responsibilities and expectations
• use your supervisor's advice and feedback.

What can my supervisor help me with?

Unlike at Bachelors and Masters degree level, your supervisor isn't necessarily an expert in your specific field of study. You'll quickly know more about your research topic than they do - so you must appreciate that they may not have the answer to all your problems.

Indeed, your relationship with your supervisor will evolve as you become less dependent on their support. They will initially focus on helping you to produce quality research, but quickly shift their attention to reviewing your findings and assisting your professional development.

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

Some supervisors dedicate far more time to students than they're required to, while some prefer not to become too involved in their students' research. However, you shouldn't stay silent if you feel like things aren't working out - especially if you're studying a STEM subject, where your supervisor is often effectively your research collaborator.

It's for this reason you should spend plenty of time finding the right academic before enrolling, as changing your supervisor should be the last resort, unless your topic has significantly shifted in the initial months of study.

Before taking any action, assess the situation and go through the reasons why you're contemplating this change once you've already started working on your thesis. Is this down to compatibility or communication issues? Do you have opposing research interests?

If you do wish to pursue this course of action, bear in mind that the process can be complex and needs to be handled in the right way - with care and consideration. Also, the following process may not be the same at all universities.

How do I change my PhD supervisor?

In the first instance, you should speak with your lead supervisor. Explain to them about your concerns and what you feel are the most important factors for this request. Try to see if there's a way to overcome these issues and redefine your working relationship. Is any additional support available?

If things have reached a point where you're not comfortable approaching members of your supervisory team, another option would be to contact your mentor. If you're unsure who this would be, your school's postgraduate research administrator should be able to point you in the right direction.

After discussing this with a member of staff, you'll typically need to request a change of supervisor through your department's postgraduate research lead - the academic lead responsible for these matters. They should be able to authorise a supervisor change and propose suitable alternatives, if you don't already have one in mind. You'll then be guided through the formal process of changing your supervisor.

Find out more

• Explore funding postgraduate study .
• Discover 5 challenges faced by PhD students .
• Consider getting an academic job .

How would you rate this page?

On a scale where 1 is dislike and 5 is like

• Dislike 1 unhappy-very
• Like 5 happy-very

Thank you for rating the page

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Me and my PhD supervisor: tales of love and loathing

Academics discuss how supervisors shaped their teaching.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Source: David Parkins

When a PhD supervision session constitutes just another blocked-out hour in a besieged diary, it can be all too easy to forget that it could make an impression that stays with the student for the rest of their research career.

We asked five academics for their recollections of the PhD supervision they received, and the way it had informed their own approach to tutoring. Three had enjoyed excellent supervision that had deeply influenced their own practice. But two had not. One recalls exchanges with their tutor characterised by yawns and silences, while another was treated with a “cutting harshness”, valuable only as an exemplar of how not to conduct yourself.

The fact that both unfortunate tutees went on to have successful careers – albeit, in the former’s case, largely thanks to a second reader – suggests that sympathetic PhD supervision is not an absolute prerequisite for future academic success. But it is surely important. So what characterises it?

According to one highly experienced supervisor, good supervision is like good parenting: you have to be “tough and clear”, as well as “kind and generous”.

Another contributor suggests good supervisors must have “great curiosity and even greater responsibility”, while a third suggests a certain virtuosity with the F-word can also be an asset.

But the most important piece of advice for supervisors must surely be that if you see a fire extinguisher flying from your tutee’s hand towards your head, be sure to duck.

I was stubborn and insensitive, but he never stopped supporting me

The relationship between PhD student and supervisor can be complex. A colleague of mine chased his supervisor out of the laboratory and then hurled a fire extinguisher at him. Fortunately it missed. Another was left entirely on his own while his supervisor did fieldwork in Tonga. My experiences fall somewhere between these extremes of interaction.

I started my PhD in 1980 and it has taken me until now to understand how the interaction with my supervisor has shaped so much of my career. I began with almost no understanding of what was expected or required, merely possessing a puppy-like enthusiasm, a passion for research and a determined disposition. By contrast, my supervisor was one of the great biologists of his generation, focused, determined, experienced and unimaginably busy. He had built a major research group at the cutting edge of his discipline. At the age of 21, the significance of all this made little impression on me.

Communication between us was not always easy, not least because I did not know how to listen. At one point I was told that I “must stop” a set of experiments. My response was to put the equipment on a trolley, wheel the set-up into different rooms and undertake the research surreptitiously at night. I did this for six months and the experiments failed. My supervisor had been right and I had been wrong, but he had used the word “must”. I still dislike being told what to do, but this experience taught me that automatically doing the complete opposite is not always an intelligent response.

There were many other awkward incidents. Memorably, I salvaged a beautiful oak professorial desk that had languished in pieces in the department storeroom. I assembled it and moved it into the communal office, for which I was branded by my supervisor as trying to be self-important. For me, it was purely an aesthetic issue, as my 1960s metal-frame desk did not appeal, and I responded to the criticism with forthright Anglo-Saxon expletives. I appreciate now why a PhD student with an oak roll-top professorial desk may cause irritation among the group. But at the time I simply did not understand the fuss or sensitivities.

These two examples illustrate why I was not an easy student. Yet my supervisor did not give up and in the end we generated some wonderful data. It was time to write.

My first effort was described as “the worst draft of a PhD thesis I have ever read” and “even worse than any of the foreign students’ ”. This uncompromising verdict stimulated a flow of text that went under my supervisor’s editorial hammer, eventually forging a thesis and then papers. Today, remembering those early verdicts, I take particular pleasure when referees comment that “this manuscript is well written”.

I also realise that I have adopted elements of my supervisor’s writing style. I am unable to use the word “reveal” but like to use “remarkably” and still write “by contrast” rather than “in contrast”; I try not to split my infinitives – a practice long abandoned by most; I have a tendency to number points in the text and I use whole phrases that have their origins back in those early days. This has all been passed on to my PhD students, who deliberately use “in contrast” and split their infinitives to make sure I have read their work.

So what else did my supervisor do for me, other than provide a rather difficult individual with an environment conducive to learning how to undertake focused, well-designed experiments, write scientific papers, deal with constructive criticism and be rigorously self-critical?

Well, so much more than I appreciated for years. It turns out that many nominations, awards and jobs were all influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the person who supervised my PhD. The support has never stopped, and I ask myself what, over the years, have I done for him? The short answer is not a lot. But at least in those early days I didn’t throw a fire extinguisher at him!

Russell Foster, a fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, is professor of circadian neuroscience and head of the department of ophthalmology at the University of Oxford .

She was detached and harsh, but the benefits became apparent later

I completed my PhD in the 1990s at the same university where I’d been an undergraduate at the tail end of the 1980s. My vibrant department was an exciting place to be in the period when “New Historicism” was still new and the first biographies of the relatively recently deceased Michel Foucault were beginning to be published.

It also struck me, on the very first rung of my academic career, as a department full of inspirational women. The staff photograph of one impossibly glamorous lecturer (who died much too young) showed a wraith of smoke making its way across her timeless face from the cigarette she balanced between elegant fingers. Two younger women had recently been appointed, and watching how they handled their first lectureships was invaluable to me. My supervisor was also a woman, and was well known and very established.

At first, I felt lucky to be working with her. It quickly became apparent, however, that she was a matchless source only of gnomic wisdom. “ ’Twas ever thus,” she would slowly intone, nodding her head, pointing her fingers into steeples in front of her mouth, her lively, intelligent eyes flashing at me from behind thick glasses in a way that utterly closed down the conversation and left me feeling like an imposition. (She was the kind of supervisor whose claims to extreme busyness suggested a series of commitments far more important than my own packed schedule, which counted for little when it came to making our rare appointments.) Buck-passing on her part was often – in a way that wouldn’t be possible these days – presented to me as a valuable career opportunity. As a consequence, painstaking editorial tasks, in the inky-fingered days before widespread digitisation, took up huge amounts of my time and earned me just the smallest mention in editions that trumpeted my supervisor’s name.

She could be cuttingly – and, with hindsight, unconsciously – harsh. I vividly remember the hot summer’s day when she phoned me at home as I was jubilantly constructing a Swedish flatpack bed. I answered and told her what I was doing. There was a pause before she delivered, in her clipped, diamond-pointed intonation, a little line that did much to remind me just how much harder she thought I should be working, and how very unimportant I was in the academic scheme of things: “Good. Building a bed. That’s a marvellous life skill, I’m sure.”

But she also did much for which I’ll always be grateful. Six months in, when my initial PhD project was really floundering, she suggested I take a day out and spend it reading books by a woman called Margaret Cavendish in Cambridge University Library. This was a wonderful experience in itself: the rare books room was a hushed treasure trove which, despite its arcane rules and indomitable gatekeepers, felt like home – unlike the well-stocked but austerely modernist concrete library of my home institution. But, more importantly, the trip presented me with the eventual subject of my thesis and first book.

The last time I heard of my supervisor, she had semi-retired to a comfortable job at her favourite university, and had overcome a serious illness. The wonder to me was that she had succumbed to it in the first place, having always seemed invincibly steely.

But now that I’m a supervisor myself, I do remember her increasingly fondly. When we become parents, we realise how much we, as children, sometimes took for granted the hard work and affection of our own parents. Similarly, when we become supervisors, we would do well to remember not only the difficult times but also the marvellous opportunity offered by having a remarkable scholarly mentor almost on tap.

The influence of my supervisor has certainly endured – albeit in reverse. Where she saw me as “just” a PhD student, I take an altogether more holistic approach to supervising. I treat my doctoral students as young people trying to build careers, with complex and conflicting demands being made of them every day. If I can support them, be approachable and let them into my life, I can better guide them in an increasingly precarious world where, perhaps, ’twas ever thus, but it needn’t be.

Emma Rees is a senior lecturer in English at the University of Chester and author of The Vagina: A Literary and Cultural History (2013).

I was lucky. He displayed great curiosity and greater responsibility

“Mr Zaretsky, the world is not holding its breath to read your next chapter.” I looked up from the letter, gazed out of the window of the cafe where I was sitting and sighed. I had missed a deadline and, as always, my adviser, Hans Schmitt, drove home the point with little hesitancy and less sentimentality. And a good thing too: a deftly delivered blow of a two-by-four to a student’s head is, at times, the greatest service an adviser can render.

I was then living in Paris, where I had moved thanks to a fellowship from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, after a year spent scouring archives in the southern city of Nîmes. Although weighed down with several boxes of index cards (the fruit of my research) and a Mac Plus (it seemed so portable back then), I felt unbearably light: my wife and I had gone through a painful transatlantic break-up and I was still struggling with the fallout.

But Mr Schmitt (at the University of Virginia, professors are addressed as our founder, Thomas Jefferson, is, as “Mr”) would have none of it. He shared with me his shock and concern about the divorce, but he did not allow this to bleed into our professional relationship. As a result, his letter avoided any reference to my private history. Instead, it was all about the public history of Catholics, Protestants and Jews in Nîmes during the Occupation. Following the letter’s opening zinger were several typed pages in which Mr Schmitt meticulously corrected and commented on the much-belated dissertation chapter. He criticised my unsubstantiated claims, but also complimented (though much less frequently) my use of archival sources and oral interviews.

Even when separated by an ocean – which was far wider before the internet – Hans Schmitt was by my side. He had been there ever since the day I asked him if he would serve as my adviser. My reasons for choosing him had little to do with modern French history – my field of study – since Mr Schmitt didn’t work on modern France. He had written books on the French Catholic nationalist Charles Péguy and the European Coal and Steel Community, regional politics in Switzerland and the Quakers in Germany. Nor did my reasons have anything to do with historiographical trends: Mr Schmitt – who died in 2004, 15 years after I defended my dissertation – thought theory was best left in the physics department and gender was best left to job applications.

But I recognised in Hans Schmitt two essential traits for an adviser: great curiosity and even greater responsibility. His sense of wonder about the past was striking, as was his sense of duty towards it. And since the past’s future was in the hands of his students, Mr Schmitt treated us with the same respect and sense of responsibility. He liked to say that the only inevitable thing is what has already happened. Now that I am the age he was when I first met him, I see just how lucky I was to have had him as my adviser.

Robert Zaretsky is professor of history in the Honors College, University of Houston .

How to help, or hinder

My career total of supervisees is now more than 80 and, over the years, I have learned a vast amount about what to do and what not to do as a supervisor. Here are my top five dos and don’ts.

• Remember that a PhD is an organic process. Reassure the student that change is not only good, it is necessary. If you end up thinking the same way as when you started, something has gone wrong. This advice is particularly helpful in year two, when the end seems a long way off.
• Read drafts. I have an agreement with my students that I will correct minutiae in a first draft, but after that I expect perfect copy without typos or mistakes in English. This is very time-consuming in the beginning, but rapidly helps students improve their writing and thinking skills.
• Have a clear understanding about what tutorials are for and recognise that students’ needs change. Spend time suggesting reading in the first instance, but then make sure you are given a piece of written work in advance of meetings so that you both have something concrete to discuss.
• Be rigorous in reading and returning work quickly. If you have several students, read in the order you receive work. I tell students my reading is like aircraft stacked up over Heathrow: they land in order, nobody jumps a queue.
• Be generous with time and above all with ideas. Supervising is like good parenting: you have to be tough, clear, kind and generous.
• Impose yourself on students. They are independent beings, not clones (see point 5 above for parenting parallels).
• Skim through a chapter and hand it back without annotations.
• Neglect to send a page or two summarising the advice you have given after a tutorial, because nine times out of 10 the student will be too agitated to remember what was said.
• Seek to engage too closely with a student’s personal life. When a friendship develops, it can last a lifetime, but it has to grow naturally.
• Choose examiners whom you may not be able to trust. I have co-examined with people who hadn’t bothered to read the thesis, people ideologically opposed to the thesis and people who see vivas as a time for aggression and one-upmanship. An external examiner can be as important as a supervisor for the future, writing references, giving career advice and perhaps even collaborating with research projects.

Susan Bassnett is professor of comparative literature at the University of Warwick .

Our expletive-filled interactions arose from our drive and commitment

My PhD was a masterclass in the art of swearing. I don’t mean that I was frustrated all the time: far from it. But regardless of whether my research was going well or if it was in a phase when nothing seemed to work, my supervisor, Greg Hughes, and I communicated almost entirely in expletives.

Some might argue that this reliance on swearing was a result of deficiencies in our respective vocabularies (and they’d have a point in my case). But I prefer to think that it reflected the extent to which we were both engaged with, and driven by, the research. Far from being the disinterested and dispassionate operators scientists are supposed to be, we both cared deeply about the interpretation of spectroscopic data, the best way to set up an experiment, and the issue of whether what I was seeing in a scanning probe microscope image was real (or yet another irritating artefact). And I gained a huge amount from our “robust” exchanges of ideas.

But it wasn’t just Greg’s remarkable talent for using the F-word as object, subject, (ad)verb and adjective in a single sentence that impressed me. His enthusiasm for research and teaching, his generosity with his time and his inspiring mentorship also played a huge role in convincing me, less than a year into my PhD at Dublin City University , that I wanted to be an academic scientist.

One lasting memory I have is of a particularly fraught experiment in the last year of my PhD. A considerable amount of the science I did took place at the now sadly decommissioned Daresbury Synchrotron Radiation Source just outside Warrington. Experiments at synchrotrons (particle accelerators that generate an intense beam of radiation invaluable for studying a wide range of materials) are scheduled around short allocations of “beam time”. This necessitates lots of long shifts in a cramped environment and often results in sleep-deprived, caffeine-fuelled scientists bickering about how best to sort out just why the blasted instrument has given up the ghost this time. Get the experiment wrong and it might be well over a year before you get the next allocation of beam time to attempt it again.

After a rather arduous 40-hour shift, I was about to leave for breakfast when Greg arrived. I barked out a list of instructions, including telling him to leave certain key parameters on the experimental kit alone. He would have been quite within his rights to take umbrage at the lippiness of a young and rather unkempt scientist with a fraction of his research experience. But instead, he nodded sagely and smiled. He later told me that it was at that point – when I was telling him what he should do, rather than the other way round – that he realised I deserved the award of a doctorate.

Ever since, I’ve used the willingness of students to robustly argue their case, and/or tell me why I’m wrong, as a benchmark for their PhD readiness. By that point, they may also find that they are swearing just that little bit more than when they started.

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

I was saved from an advisory vacuum by a responsive second reader

My most vivid recollection of meeting with my dissertation adviser Brendan O Hehir (no apostrophe, please!) as a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Berkeley in the 1960s was the volume and duration of his yawns, which could sometimes last as long as 10 or 15 seconds.

Granted, my painstaking analysis of the rhetorical strategies Jonathan Swift used in urging the Irish people to boycott William Wood’s copper coinage in the Drapier’s Letters may not have been gripping stuff (spoiler alert: they succeeded). But this was the same Brendan O Hehir who had co-authored not one but two lexicons to Finnegans Wake (one Gaelic, the other Classical), as well as an annotated edition of 17th-century poet John Denham’s Cooper’s Hill . If anyone should have had a high tedium threshold, it was surely Brendan.

Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did he suffer from narcolepsy, although, to his credit, he had survived childhood rheumatic fever and two experimental heart bypass surgeries that had helped transform him from a skeletal nine stone to nearly 14 stone in less than a year, with an accompanying dramatic revival of his libido (it was Berkeley in the 1960s, after all).

I had taken several of his courses and he had even once published an article on Swift’s poetry, so he seemed a likely choice to direct my doctoral dissertation. I asked Gardner Stout, who had published a scholarly edition of Laurence Sterne’s A Sentimental Journey , to be my second reader because it was in his seminar on Swift and Sterne that I’d begun to investigate the Drapier’s Letters . His easy manner was the exact opposite of Brendan’s incredibly awkward small talk.

While never true social friends, I had once invited Brendan to dinner as thanks for supporting my successful Fulbright application for research in Ireland, on which occasion he downed several cups of “Irish coffee” after instructing me to leave out the sugar, cream – and coffee. Ever the pedant, he corrected my mispronunciation of Irish towns, including where I eventually settled, Dun Laoghaire – which is apparently pronounced “Dun Leary” and not, as I had ventured, “Dun Lay-ug-hairy”. Who knew?

Once settled in Ireland, I began making what I considered productive use of the Trinity College Dublin archives, and sent Brendan progress reports on what I discovered. By way of response, all I received was deafening silence. Six months passed and still nothing – which, as Lear remarked so memorably, was not altogether encouraging.

Of course, living in Ireland a stone’s throw from Joyce’s Martello Tower in Sandycove was not entirely a hardship; and I was commissioned to write an introduction to Gulliver’s Travels for the same series for which “Famous Seamus” Heaney wrote an introduction to Macbeth . But by 1970 the job market was starting to dry up and I needed to get my degree and begin seeking gainful employment.

Whenever Brendan did get around to responding to my letters, his written comments continued to suggest drowsiness. Fortunately, Gardner came to the rescue. He not only responded promptly but also grasped the holistic argument of my thesis better even than I did. His detailed comments both challenged and directed in ways that enabled me to return home confident that the end was nigh. Further fortified by the approval of a third reader, I succeeded in 1972 in attaining a faculty position at Southeastern Massachusetts University (now the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth ), where I remained until I retired in 2013 .

Because my scholarly focus shifted radically over the years from Swift and the 18th century to Sylvia Plath (much too long a story to recount here), I soon lost contact with both my dissertation advisers. The last time I saw Brendan was at a Modern Language Association meeting in San Francisco nearly two decades later. By then he was so physically transformed by the brain cancer from which he would soon die that I scarcely recognised him when he was “introduced” to me. Rather than a yawn, my facial expression more closely resembled that of Edvard Munch’s Scream .

Richard Larschan was professor of English at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth .

Register to continue

Why register?

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

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

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

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Essential PhD tips: 10 articles all doctoral students should read

PhD advice: from choosing the right topic to getting through your thesis

You might also like

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

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

Most PhD students with hidden disabilities ‘unhappy with support’

Postgraduate researchers with non-visible disabilties often struggle to access proper employee-type support, says University and College Union report

PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

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

Featured jobs

Stack Exchange Network

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

Q&A for work

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

How can I avoid this unproductive pattern with my PhD supervisor?

I’m currently a PhD student in electrical engineering in the US, and I changed supervisors after the end of my first year as a PhD student. There were several reasons for this, but the main one was because I would fall into the following cycle with my previous supervisor:

• Supervisor proposes an idea (e.g. a way to solve a problem).
• I express my concerns that this idea will likely not work and will need fundamental adjustments.
• I am told by my supervisor to not ask too many questions and to just follow orders and implement their idea.
• I do as I’m told and implement their idea to the best of my ability and, as expected, it does not work.
• I am then blamed by my supervisor that the idea did not work, even though I expressed my concerns before. Another consequence is that time is wasted during my PhD.

I saw no way out of this cycle with my previous supervisor, so I decided to change supervisors in the hope that this wouldn’t happen again. However, with my current supervisor, I feel that I’m falling into the same cycle again. My new supervisor does not read too many papers in the literature. He simply sent me an initial paper to start with, and I continued reading the literature from there. Because of this situation, my supervisor often proposes ideas that sound reasonable at a high level, but don’t really work when I look at the details.

The difference in this case compared to the situation with my previous supervisor is that I purposefully resist my new supervisor more in step 2 above to make sure that their idea has a very low probability of failure, so that I don’t get blamed for its failure in the end.

Unfortunately, this has led to the unintended side-effect that my new supervisor sees me as argumentative. They’ve hinted at this on some occasions.

I’m not sure what exactly I can do at this point. Changing supervisors again is clearly not an option. I’ve also tried saving emails from previous conversations as proof that it’s their idea and that I expressed my concerns. However, these emails don’t persuade my new supervisor otherwise and I still get blamed.

• research-process
• supervision

• 5 There seems to be a cultural clash. Are you from the same culture as your advisor? Would they allow you working much more independently, e.g., come up with your own ideas? The described cycle sounds very toxic to me. Beyond the overarching directions, I would expect step 1 to be "PhD student proposes an idea" but I'm from a different culture. –  user9482 Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 8:21
• 4 What happens when you propose an idea? Or when you start off your supervisor's idea and propose a modification that might work? –  Stephan Kolassa Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 8:35
• 2 You’re overlooking the research opportunities this presents. Why not dig into why the idea, as presented, didn’t work out and what it would take for something different, but similar, to be successful? –  A rural reader Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 16:57
• 2 @Aruralreader yes, that is what I do in the "express my concerns" step. I think about the details about my supervisor's idea, and try to understand how it can work. It as at this point that I sometimes find flaws in their idea. I try to explain these flaws to them, and propose a different path forward, but I'm often met with resistance. –  mhdadk Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 21:56
• 1 @Aruralreader I back down and just follow their idea, which eventually doesn't work and I get blamed for why it didn't work even though I explained in the past why it wouldn't work. –  mhdadk Commented Dec 8, 2023 at 0:26

4 Answers 4

Keep in mind that this is subjective, but here's my advice moving forward:

• Point 0: Reframe your expectations

As a PhD student, you want to do independent research, with some guidance from your supervisor. At the start, it makes sense for them to steer you a bit in terms of the big picture; later, you'll just want them to support your line of inquires. To get there, you want to build trust with them. Assuming good faith on all sides, the best way to achieve this is successfully completing tasks, and some niceness.

• Point 1: Find a big-picture idea/problem you both like

It sounds like your supervisor is already sending you suggestions (papers) and the like. Find something that you want to work on, and that they seem supportive of. This is a threefold objective. Scientifically, you should have some big-picture direction (even if it's not ideal, you'll learn a lot). Logistically, you want your supervisor's blessing to work on X (you can expand your degrees of freedom from there). Socially, you've been struggling to agree with them. Thank them for their contribution to finding X idea, and celebrate this win. Try to err on the side of being collaborative and agreeable.

• Point 1b: Take their ideas on board

Your supervisor might have more detailed ideas about how to do project X. Don't dismiss them out of hand; write them all down, thank them for their input. Once you've built more trust, you can argue again: for now, assume that they know what they're talking about and are trying to help you.

• Point 2: Debug, do science

Go through their ideas and your ideas, and come up with a reasonable plan of action to work on project X. If you're unsure about the implementation of some details, talk to a postdoc or some more experienced lab-mate. You might need to put some token effort into your supervisor's ideas to show that the approaches are unwise. The key point here is that you agreed to work on project X, and this is your positive attitude moving forward. Changing the implementation details along the way as the need arises is within your wheelhouse, so do it. Document what you're working on, what you tried, what worked so far (or didn't).

• Point 3: Update supervisor

Keep up a regular meeting schedule: let them know how project X is going. If you needed to fundamentally adjust their suggestions, frame it positively, e.g. "I did some reading and [Y paper] suggested that [Z method] is more efficient, so I implemented that..." or "I tried [dumb idea], but [obvious problems] happened, so I asked [trusted postdoc] and followed [N approach] instead.". As long as you have reasonable results and used a reputable scientific approach, they should come around in time.

• Point 4: Be nice, build your reputation

Keep working on project X, but don't forget the long game - you want your supervisor to trust you, and help you grow into a mature collaborator. Don't gloat if your approach works (over your supervisor's), give them credit, try to stay positive when problems arise and avoid the blame game. Right now you're "argumentative": at the end of the project, you're aiming for something like "well mhdadk sure is opinionated, but they get things done". It's probably also a good idea to try to build positive relationships with postdocs and other senior scientists around you.

• Point 5: Feed into the positive pattern

Once you're completed project X, propose your own ideas for the next big-picture and see how your supervisor reacts. Ideally, they'll give you more freedom once you've shown that you work well with it. Always try to find some common ground, but as you get more experienced, treat their recommendations as suggestions.

A positive anecdote : I had a similar, but far less extreme problem with my masters supervisor. They were a big-picture person, trying to give me specific advice (since I was starting out) but this was not their forte. A kind PhD student explained to me that when Prof A. said "do X to get Y", they meant that Y is a cool topic that they're interested in, and I should aim for a simpler, attainable rephrasing of Y with whatever method seemed most appropriate (often somewhat related to X). This was a bit confusing at first, but worked out well in the end.

• Thanks a lot for the positive anecdote. It actually explained a lot for me. –  mhdadk Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 22:07
• +1 for building relationships other than that with your supervisor. Such situations feel a lot less "trapped" if you have career eggs in many other baskets. It might also provide comparison points so you can gauge how reasonable/representative (or not) the specific relationship with your supervisor is. IDK whether you intend an academic career, but the ability to be gregarious and then selective seems crucial. Rarely will you be quite so beholden to a single other individual again –  benxyzzy Commented Dec 8, 2023 at 9:52

Obviously I'm not in the same room, so all I have is your description and interpretation of the (indeed unproductive) pattern/cycle. Here is my interpretation, especially since this is now the second time this seems to be a problem between you and a supervisor:

=> IMHO that is exactly what a supervisor is supposed to do. Obviously, the more experience you gain as a PhD student, the more independent you will become and the better your own ideas and approaches will be. I think it is important to realize that especially at the start, your supervisor will have years (sometimes decades) more experience in doing science and at having these macro-level hunches of why something may or may not be the right direction approach. I do recognize your frustration, having been there myself, but trust that your supervisor is not just throwing stuff around that won't work. Unless they are a horrible scientist and supervisor, but there's no indication of that here. In fact, I think you should prepare yourself for a future in which your supervisor will hardly ever run out of new ideas or new suggestions and will keep throwing them at you, and it is your job to carve out the best way forward. Especially in engineering it will ultimately be about coming up with something that works and when you are successful, a good supervisor will be happy regardless of who came up with what suggestion when. All these interactions and discussions were needed to get to the final stage. Remember that.

=> If this is what always happens then indeed you will come across as argumentative. Of course it is good that you see all the pitfalls and problems. In fact, smart and fast thinking PhD students will often see that. But it is your job as a PhD student to learn and overcome these obstacles (ideally together with your supervisor) - and all of that starts with you at least being open and willing to try something they suggest. Also: if during your discussion you come up with alternatives that will improve on the idea of your supervisor because of some obstacles you foresee, then a good supervisor should recognize those. Maybe not right away, but if you try their idea/approach and it doesn't work (see 4) and you come up with an alternative or a solution and that does work (and you can show them the data/results next time you meet), then I still need to come across a supervisor who wouldn't be excited and happy about that.

=> If you do this grudgingly, without coming up with possible alternatives then that's probably not what the supervisor intended. A good supervisor would hope that a student will explore their direction (macro-level idea) and then come up with work arounds where stuff fails (micro-level idea). It seems like you've never actually gotten to that point because the argumentation and discussion wins out.

=> There is no such thing as wasted time during a PhD. I don't know how this works in electrical engineering specifically, but very often most of what you try fails. It's about overcoming these failures that is part of the learning process during a PhD. You learn problem solving skills. You learn to stick with something if you truly believe in it and care about the topic/problem you are working on. You learn to hone your argumentative skills so that you are not perceived as a a nay-sayer but as someone who never runs out of new ideas and alternatives. It's all about having a constructive discussion and this is something you need to learn.

I would try to bring this very point up with your supervisor as it will show signs of maturity: Tell them that you get the impression that you come across as argumentative. That you don't think this is productive for either one of you and you want to improve on that. Then ask them how you can work on this together. Truly listen and take it from there. Are you sure you are being blamed? Is that what your supervisor intends to communicate? Is this the same reaction you got from your first supervisor? Ask them what they really mean here! This will also take time and practice, so be patient.

• 9 ‘Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions.’ - I tried using the Doohickey method as we discussed but the data wasn’t very good, so I switched to the Whatchamacallit process and started getting these preliminary results. I think a slight tweak to the Thingamabob will really let us get good data. –  Jon Custer Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 13:46
• 3 wasted time during a PhD is too much discussion and argumentation of why it won't work and not enough doing –  D Duck Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 19:14
• 1 (+1) "Maybe not right away, but if you try their idea/approach and it doesn't work (see 4) and you come up with an alternative or a solution and that does work (and you can show them the data/results next time you meet), then I still need to come across a supervisor who wouldn't be excited and happy about that." My only concern about this approach is that this can waste a lot of time if my supervisor's initial idea almost always contains flaws. At the start, I used to implement their idea with no questions asked, but this changed when I saw that their initial ideas often lead to a dead-end. –  mhdadk Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 22:02
• 3 "There is no such thing as wasted time during a PhD. I don't know how this works in electrical engineering specifically, but very often most of what you try fails." I completely agree that most of what I do will fail, but because I do not have much time left during my PhD, I would prefer that the failures happen on a low level (details) rather than on a high-level (research direction). Failures on the low level, in my experience, often require much less time spent than failures on the high level. –  mhdadk Commented Dec 7, 2023 at 22:05

It sounds like you need to listen more and talk less. Done is better than perfect. You aren't getting things done because you are trying to be perfect. Do the task. Maybe you are supposed to do it wrong for a reason.

It appears you are always trying to challenge your supervisors points of views that's why you think you are trapped in a cycle. As a PhD student, look at your supervisor as parent and give them that respect and a listening ear first. Take their suggestions into consideration and combine with your own ideas. Never go and tell them their ideas didn't work only yours worked out. That's telling them they are not qualified to supervise a genius like you.

Your main issue is PRIDE.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd research-process advisor supervision ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• What is a proper word for (almost) identical products?
• Requesting explanation on the meaning of the word 'Passerby'?
• Can Curve25519 shared secret be safely truncated to half its size?
• Is selecting a random person from an infinite population of people an invalid premise to begin with?
• What is the next layers of defence against cookie stealing if GET parameter is vulnerable to XSS and there is no HttpOnly flag in a website?
• Automatically giving nodes the name that is also used as their label
• What (and why) is right and wrong? (For humanity, as a whole)
• When writing a blurb, can I refer to my characters using descriptors instead of their names?
• Draw a Regular Reuleaux Polygon
• Calculate sum of self-exponentation
• How should I understand "mit" in this sentence?
• Prior art on precedence rules on template instantiation for inner entity clashes
• Is this a potentially more intuitive approach to MergeSort?
• Can a star be made of sun spots?
• How do satellite trackers work when showing a "satellite"?
• Ignore higher order terms in an expression
• What is the meaning of "sutting "?
• Finitely generated k-Algebra
• Issues with ICL7660 ICs from eBay - Overheating and Failure
• Why is the usage of 真 in 那是个真热闹的地方 considered an error?
• How much dispersion is too much for quasipoisson regression?
• How do I get Windows 11 to use existing Linux GPT on 6TB external HDD?
• Why do cubic equations always have at least one real root, and why was it needed to introduce complex numbers?
• Addon works just fine from text editor, but failing to enabling from add-ons preferences

How I broke up with my supervisor.

This post, written by a PhD student, who wishes to stay anonymous, was sent to me late last year. Due to my new job, it’s taken me a long time to edit it down and make sure it doesn’t identify the student or their supervisor. I think you will find it an interesting story that highlights the tensions we all experience around the ‘finish at all costs (and on time)’ mentality.

Insitutions are feeling financial pressure to complete candidates within 4 years and put this pressure onto supervisors, who then pressure students. But s ocial media, by connecting students with each other, is giving some the courage to push back against this pressure. Supervisors might feel they are doing their best for a student by behaving as described in this post, but are they really? I’ll be interested to hear what you think in the comments.

My carefully worded email to my supervisors said I wanted to discuss our processes at the next supervision, and named that I’d been feeling disheartened and shut down , which I was sure was not their intention. Instead of the usually effusive response, the reply was ‘OK’. I cried a lot that week, and could feel myself slipping into the helpless depression that comes from feeling powerless and bullied.

As it happens I was not trying to do anything too radical with my approach to research and writing. I wanted to understand the big picture of my research field, try to learn some theory and apply it appropriately. I wanted to write about my insights on policy and current practice in relation to my topic area, based on published, scholarly literature. Basically I wanted to come out confident I had contributed something to knowledge via my topic , gained valuable skills and expertise, but still have lots more to learn. Personal growth and insight would come in parallel with the academic skills as part of the complex PhD journey.

This was not the paradigm presented to me in, what turned out to be, my final meeting with my now ex-supervisor.

Her vision of what ‘research training’ entails is to stay totally focused on your topic. My summary of her description is this: Don’t talk to anyone, don’t write anything non-academic. The topic is not what is important – all that matters is getting finished and being able then to move on to something interesting and collaborative. If I asked a question, expect to be told to find my own answer. If that answer is wrong, be sent away to come up with another one. Spend months alone with the data, going over and over until eventually a lightbulb moment happens. Don’t go to conferences, they distract you. Exclude everything else from life until it is done, because it is the piece of paper that matters, and opens doors to other opportunities.

This is the way of modern academia. It’s a game, and this is the way to play it successfully . This is how she had been supervised, with a powerful mentor who fast-tracked her to completion and a high position within a short time of arriving at the university.

This reminded me of when, aged 11, I prepared for religious confirmation, and said to my mother that I wasn’t sure if I believed in god or not. ‘Get confirmed first and think about it later’ was her reply. The process, and deep thinking or wide learning were deemed less important than the status at the end. As an 11 year old I saw the inappropriateness of my mother’s advice, but went along with it anyway. I am better now at standing up for what I believe in. (I’m still an atheist.)

In our last supervision session my request to discuss how we worked, my inability to make progress with her way of responding to my work in progress, the tears pouring down my face, were not mentioned. Instead I was given a description of how they all work when writing an article together: ‘this is shit, rewrite it’, no politeness or support, which apparently ends in an article being finished quickly.

The page from Stylish Academic Writing (Sword, 2012) describing what made a good article, which I had sent in the interests of sharing something I was reading, was mocked as being wrong and not in line with current practice. The page from Stylish Academic Writing  (Sword, 2012) describing what made a good article, which I had sent in the interests of sharing something I was reading, was mocked as being wrong and not in line with current practice. If I didn’t like this approach maybe I could go to a different faculty and find a ‘feminist supervisor’, who won’t mind if I take 10 years to complete. This response showed neither an understanding of feminism nor my own intention to complete in a timely manner

The upshot of this meeting was: “No hard feelings, find a supervisor better suited to your style. I’ll sign the paperwork.”

I don’t doubt that this fast track, focus-on-the-task-and-get-finished-approach is common. It suits the hard, vocation-oriented direction universities are taking. They are businesses first, institutes of learning second. It bothers me, though. What kind of scholars is this fast-track paradigm creating? What impact is it having on the breadth of knowledge and depth of understanding, and the development of creative thinking and opportunities for excellent teachers to pass on thoughtful approaches and considerate practice?

Through social media I have learned that there are alternative ways to approach an idea , learn about a topic, publication and discussion. I know I’m not alone in my desire to learn deeply, to receive thoughtful input, to share ideas and to develop the courage to step out into the field.

Throughout Twitter has been an associate supervisor , guiding me, offering support and encouragement, the latest research about my topic. It’s provided instant community, with a hive mind to answer questions or suggest resources. It has been an important aspect of my candidature to date, and has contributed significantly to the resilience and confidence I feel as I seek a new supervisor to work with IRL to help me get finished in a timely manner, with deep learning along the way. Thanks, everyone!

Postscript 4 December 2012

I wrote the piece above just after the rift with my ex-supervisors happened, when I was full of grief, outrage, and frustration. Since then I have found new supervisors who are determined to keep me focused and finished , but are also open to a diversity of approaches and working in a way that suits me. I had been accepted to present at a conference in November, and nearly withdrew because I was feeling so disheartened, but decided to go, and shake off the previous negativity.

After my presentation I was approached by a respected academic in my field who said she liked my topic, approach, and way of thinking, and was I interested in doing a post-doc? Yes, please! While this was just a casual query, and no concrete offers have been made, as I do have to finish the PhD first, I have been buoyed by this interest and confidence, my work is progressing nicely, and I’m feeling good.

I’m glad to hear it all worked out Anonymous! How about you? Have you found yourself pressured to complete in a way that you think was detrimental to your own development as a researcher and scholar? Or do you think we need to respect the time limits that are set?

Share this:

The Thesis Whisperer is written by Professor Inger Mewburn, director of researcher development at The Australian National University . New posts on the first Wednesday of the month. Subscribe by email below. Visit the About page to find out more about me, my podcasts and books. I'm on most social media platforms as @thesiswhisperer. The best places to talk to me are LinkedIn , Mastodon and Threads.

• Post (607)
• Page (16)
• Product (6)
• Getting things done (259)
• Miscellany (138)
• On Writing (138)
• Your Career (113)
• You and your supervisor (66)
• Writing (48)
• productivity (23)
• consulting (13)
• TWC (13)
• supervision (12)
• 2024 (6)
• 2023 (12)
• 2022 (11)
• 2021 (15)
• 2020 (22)

Whisper to me....

Enter your email address to get posts by email.

Email Address

Sign me up!

• On the reg: a podcast with @jasondowns
• Thesis Whisperer on Facebook
• Thesis Whisperer on Instagram
• Thesis Whisperer on Soundcloud
• Thesis Whisperer on Youtube
• Thesiswhisperer on Mastodon
• Thesiswhisperer page on LinkedIn
• Thesiswhisperer Podcast
• 12,162,705 hits

Discover more from The Thesis Whisperer

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading