phd students and supervisor

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

Business Support Officer

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

Deputy Editor - Technology

Managing your Mental Health during your PhD pp 135–154 Cite as

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

• Zoë J. Ayres 2  
• First Online: 15 September 2022

8335 Accesses

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

(Trigger Warnings: bullying, harassment, sexual harassment)

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

Buying options

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zoë J. Ayres

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

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

Download citation

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

Published : 15 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

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

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Research management

Sponsored by

Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors

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

Tara Brabazon

Additional links.

• More on this topic

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

Discover elsevier.

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} How to help young women see themselves as coders

Libraries’ role in digital education: content is still king, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, on the neurodivergent campus, language matters, artificial intelligence and academic integrity: striking a balance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Assumptions kill doctorates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Create a strong supervisory team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more insights from Tara Brabazon:

How to get students through their PhD thesis

10 truths a PhD supervisor will never tell you

How not to write a PhD thesis

14 essential PhD questions answered

How to help young women see themselves as coders

Contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, addressing the generative ai literacy gap in he, a diy guide to starting your own journal, decolonising the curriculum – how do i get started, the importance of black spaces in white academia.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

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.

The unit of analysis refers to the main parameter that you’re investigating in your research project or study.

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.

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

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

Browse PhDs Now

Tenure is a permanent position awarded to professors showing excellence in research and teaching. Find out more about the competitive position!

Dr Jadavji completed her PhD in Medical Genetics & Neuroscience from McGill University, Montreal, Canada in 2012. She is now an assistant professor involved in a mix of research, teaching and service projects.

Christine is entering the 4th year of her PhD Carleton University, researching worker’s experiences of the changing conditions in the Non Profit and Social Service sector, pre and during COVID-19.

Join Thousands of Students

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

Jan 8, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to choose a PhD supervisor 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your PhD Thesis. On one page.

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

What is the role of a supervisor?

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

In other words: they advise, you decide. 

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

Primarily, their job is:

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

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

What does a supervisor not do?

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

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

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

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

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

What you need to do to please your supervisor

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

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

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

Wrapping up

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

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

Hello, Doctor…

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

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

Share this:

10 comments.

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

Thanks for the kind words.

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

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

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

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

You’re very welcome. Thanks for reading.

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

So wish me luck.

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

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

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

PhD students: what to do if you don't work well with your supervisor

Supervisors can be enabling and supportive - but they can also be bullies. Gina Wisker offers advice on how to manage this sometimes tricky relationship

• PhD supervisor sadness: the empty nest
• Finishing your PhD thesis: 15 top tips from those in the know
• How to stay sane through a PhD: get survival tips from fellow students
• Five things successful PhD students refuse to do

Some PhD students have positive tales of supervisors who are good managers and become lifelong friends. Others, however, have horror stories. These are the supervisors who do not see students regularly, show little interest in their work, make unrealistic demands on their progress, don’t put them in touch with other students or networks, and provide harsh, confusing or no feedback.

Some PhD students say they never see their supervisor at all, so they just get on with the work themselves.

So, what’s the best way of managing this sometimes tricky relationship? There are three aspects to this: personal, learning and institutional.

Personal: set some ground rules

The supervisor/student relationship is both personal and professional. It can resemble negotiating with a variously supportive, controlling or critical parent (while they might have your best interests at heart, they can be hurtful in their comments or focused somewhere else. But it can also resemble managing a busy, intelligent, sometimes absent and sometimes demanding manager. They too want to get the research project completed but sometimes neither of you quite understand how to work together to do this effectively.

Sometimes students and supervisors simply don’t get on as people. Establishing ground rules about working together, regular supervision meetings, agendas and responsibilities right at the start helps ward off everyday breakdowns.

But some of the breakdowns are more serious, to do with working practices and making progress. Some supervisors give less attention to students who are apparently making good intellectual progress, while others are stressed and pass that on when a student doesn’t make progress.

There are darker stories of selfishness, power and meanness, where supervisors use their students to produce the supervisor’s work, take all the accolades for publications and results, and belittle student’s different approaches.

People in power can be enabling, supportive and developmental, and they can also be bullies . Some research , including my own, has looked at the emotional intelligence and the emotional boundary work involved, as well as how to pick up the pieces if the relationship goes wrong. Supervisors and students report being stressed, surprised, hurt and abandoned when this happens. The emotional breakdown can make both of you ill and prevents the research or writing continuing.

So getting good working practices established from the start, managing expectations and knowing the support structures of the university and its regulations are all important. Make sure there are agreed milestones to take stock of work and the working relationship so far, and make changes if needed.

Learning: ask the right question

Some breakdowns are blocks caused by lack of progress, or by too little or confusing feedback. Students should let the supervisor know they are stuck and ask for advice and guidance about next steps. This could be new experiments, further reading, discussing theoretical perspectives, unpicking confusing feedback for clarity, or finding or building groups with whom to share work.

Breakthrough learning or learning leaps can take place at different stages in the PhD journey, such as finding exactly the right question, seeing where your work is situated in the literature and how you make a contribution to the conversation of learning in your discipline. Asking your supervisor questions, and sharing ideas with other students can nudge this breakthrough in thinking, research and writing.

Institutional: don’t sit and suffer

Establishing ground rules and managed processes of working together and using the regulations and systems for structured, regular progress meetings will help.

You do not need to endure problems with a supervisor, suffer in your work and worry endlessly about what to do next. There is often a director of research or postgraduate student leader you can talk to about issues, and they may offer structured ways forward to deal with problems, including a form of arbitration between supervisor and student, or the further use of other supervisory team members. Do use these – don’t sit and suffer.

If you switch supervisor too often, it will seem to be a problem. Other supervisors may not want to take you on. We all see relationship difficulties from different angles, you need to be clear about the problems, work to fix them offering suggestions about what would work for you in the future.

Develop mutual sensitivity

The supervisor/PhD student relationship can be one of lifelong intellectual friendship, or one of problems that you learn to manage – but mutual sensitivity about working patterns and the emotions tied up with intellectual work is the best basis for good supervisor-student relationships.

Gina Wisker is professor of higher education and contemporary literature and head of the centre for learning and teaching at the University of Brighton.

Enter the Guardian university awards 2015 and join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered .

• Universities
• Early career researchers
• Higher education

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Meta Gorup, Melissa Laufer

When Relationships Between Supervisors and Doctoral Researchers Go Wrong

3 November 2020 | doi:10.5281/zenodo.4213175 | 1 Comment

Gorup & Laufer on how control is exercised and abused within relationships between doctoral supervisors and their students, what happens when PhD students challenge this control, and how we break free of this cycle of control.

Doctoral researchers represent a crucial group within the academic workforce. They importantly contribute to their departments’ and universities’ research efforts by, among other, carrying out data collection, running experiments, helping with or leading publication writing, presenting at conferences, and sometimes applying for research funding.

In 2018, doctoral programs across OECD countries enrolled over a million and a half doctoral students and granted a total of nearly 278,000 PhD or equivalent degrees (OECD n.d.).

However, this large, vital group of researchers faces numerous challenges connected to managing a several-years-long research project while learning a host of new skills and  coming to terms with the unwritten rules of academia. It is thus perhaps not unexpected – although rarely openly talked about – that around 50 percent of doctoral researchers discontinue their doctorates (Council of Graduate Schools 2008; Groenvynck et al. 2013; Vassil and Solvak 2012).

In this blog post, we explore what is behind this worrying statistic. Specifically, we examine the role the relationship between doctoral supervisors and their students plays in the latter’s decision to discontinue their doctorates.

Melissa Laufer

We first shed light on the existing research pointing to the crucial role of supervisors in and their control over students’ doctoral journeys . Furthermore, we demonstrate that supervision-related issues are a common concern among PhD students. We then show that doctoral researchers’ problems with supervisors are often exacerbated by an institutional environment which discourages PhD students from addressing these issues.

The remainder of the text presents our own study of international doctoral student dropout , revealing patterns of ‘control’ and abuse thereof by doctoral supervisors which in several cases played a decisive role in the PhD students’ decision to discontinue. Drawing upon the empirics of our study, we explore:

• How is control exercised and abused within relationships between doctoral supervisors and their students?
• What happens when PhD students challenge this control?
• And how do we break free of this cycle of control?

Supervisors Play a Central Role

While the reasons for a doctoral researcher’s decision to discontinue their doctoral studies are multifaceted – from personal and family issues to departmental and disciplinary cultures (Gardner 2009; Golde 2005; Leijen et al. 2016) – issues with supervisors often contribute to a doctoral student’s decision to discontinue their PhD (Gardner 2009; Golde 2005; Jones 2013; Leijen et al. 2016).

This is hardly surprising since, to a doctoral student, their supervisor is commonly “the central and most powerful person” who controls many crucial aspects of the PhD trajectory: the doctoral researcher’s integration into the academic community and discipline, the topic and process of their dissertation research, their career path following the doctorate (Lovitts 2001: 131), and sometimes the PhD students’ funding (Golde 2005; Laufer & Gorup 2019).

Doctoral Supervision Needs Improvement

The essential role of doctoral supervisors in the PhD students’ experience and success makes the statistics that report on persistent supervisory issues all the more worrisome.

A global survey of over 6,300 PhD researchers initiated by Nature found that doctoral researchers based in Europe were very likely to list “impact of poor supervisor relationship” as one of their top five concerns (Lauchlan 2019). In the UK, a study of over 50,000 postgraduate research students – which included both PhD-level and research master’s students – found that 38 percent of respondents listed “learning and support” as an area in need of improvement, and out of those, 46 percent referred to various supervision-related is sues (Williams 2019).

What is more, the previously mentioned Nature survey found that 21 percent of respondents experienced being bullied. Among those, 48 percent listed their supervisors as the most frequent perpetrators of bu llying (Lauchlan 2019)

A Disempowering Institutional Environment

What further hinders those doctoral researchers who experience difficulties with their supervisors is an institutional environment which disempowers them to proactively address their situations. Because PhD students “are in a subordinate and dependent position socially, intellectually, and financially,” they are unlikely to challenge those superior to them (Lovitts 2001: 34–35).

Studies report that doctoral students “fear” raising an issue to or about a supervisor (Metcalfe et al. 2018) and are plagued by “fear of repercussions” because they cannot address their concerns anonymously (Lauchlan 2019). At the same time, universities are generally seen as reluctant to address supervision-related problems (Metcalfe et al. 2018) and academics tend to place the blame on PhD researchers for their issues rather than on the doctoral program or the university (Gardner 2009; Lovitts 2001).

To this point, a survey of almost 2,500 doctoral researchers at the Max Planck Society in Germany reports that only half of doctoral students who experienced conflicts with those senior to them reported the conflicts to an institutional body. Among those who did, over 50 percent indicated the reports were not dealt with in a satisfactory manner (Max Planck PhDnet Survey Group 2020).

The International Doctoral Student Experience

One group of PhD researchers particularly vulnerable to the extreme challenges of the doctorate is international doctoral students (IDSs). They are required not only to adjust to a new academic system but also to a new society (Le & Gardner 2010; Campbell 2015; Cotterall 2015).

I DSs make up 22 percent of doctoral enro llments across OECD countries (OECD 2020), with their dropout rates comparable to local students, at circa 50 percent (Groenvynck et al. 2013). However, despite similarities in discontinuation rates, studies point out that IDSs are especially susceptible to disempowerment .

They are more inclined to experience issues with their su pervisors (Adams and Cargill 2003; Adrian-Taylor et al. 2007; Campbell 2015) and may encounter discrimin ation (Mayuzumi et al. 2007). The previously mentioned Max Planck Society survey (2020) for instance found that non-Germans were exposed to more bullying from supervisors than their German colleagues, with doctoral researchers coming from outside the European Union experiencing the most cases at 15 percent.

A Study of International Doctoral Student Dropout

Our 2019 study, The Invisible Others: Stories of International Doctoral Student Dropout , also highlights the vulnerability of IDSs. Specifically, it demonstrates how their statuses as cultural outsiders and academic novices contributed to their disempowerment and the eventual discontinuation of their studies.

We conducted in-depth life story interviews with 11 IDSs who had discontinued their doctorates at a Western European university. Across their narratives, we identified a pattern of ‘control’ that was exercised, and in some cases abused, by those in positions of power as well as institutionalized within the university structure.

Moreover, eight out of 11 participants described how issues with their supervisors to a greater or lesser degree prompted them to discontinue their doctorates .

Supervisors Controlling the Academic Conversation

Below we look at a selection of a broad spectrum of aspects in which supervisors exercised control over their IDSs’ doctoral journeys and show how the scale of power regularly tipped in the favor of supervisors.

Problematic Feedback and Mentorship Practices

Nearly all the IDSs reported some level of dissatisfaction with their supervisors’ feedback and support practices, with some explicitly pointing to supervisors’ control over their progress, learning and even future career.

Some IDSs explained, for example, that it was difficult to get any time at all with their supervisors, in some instances also sharing that this was not a challenge for local students. One PhD student described how they – as internationals – were “ all on our own completely, since the very beginning .”

One participant reported how the feedback he received largely focused on pointing out deficiencies and how he was not given opportunities to engage in dialogue about his work. This made him feel that the comments were delivered from the supervisors’ “ clearly defined position of power .” Similarly, another IDS explained how he felt he was “ not learning anything because I’m doing all that she’s [the supervisor] saying .”

For one research participant, the extent of his supervisor’s control explicitly extended to his future career. Initially, the supervisor agreed with the PhD student’s choice to discontinue and offered to write recommendation letters for his doctorate applications elsewhere. However, our interviewee later found out that his supervisor told a potential employer that he was not actually interested in pursuing a PhD.

Struggles Over the Ownership of the Research Project

A number of IDSs also felt their research projects were largely controlled by supervisors who did not give them the freedom to choose their research topic or decide how to approach it.

One doctoral researcher described how he felt that the “ research project doesn’t belong to me ,” together with feelings of “ working for someone else .” Another IDS shared that she was successful in winning an external grant which was supposed to give her the freedom to choose her research topic. However, in reality, she “ couldn’t make any decisions [about] my own work ”.

Some IDSs also reported the supervisors’ micro-management and lack of trust in them. One research participant explained how her supervisor

was completely behind my back, all the time. Like if I was coming in from an experiment, he would be like, what are the results? … He was all the time behind me and there was no trust in what I was doing, I was surveilled all the time.

This doctoral student was not alone in experiencing a constant pressure to perform and feeling surveilled. One IDS even shared he thought his supervisor “feels like she owns a person.”

Funding in Supervisors’ Hands

Another aspect where the supervisors’ power abuse was very apparent was finances, likely more so because at the case study university, supervisors were in large part directly in control of the PhD students’ funding.

Some IDSs reported how they were promised funding for a full PhD of four to five years, but were told after a year or two that their contract would not be extended. One research participant shared:

during the job interview on Skype and on site I have been told that there was funding for a PhD. That they would make a contract until the end of the first year, at the same time I would apply for an external grant … but not to worry because there was the funding for the entire project. … Which turned out not to be true.

In a couple of cases, doctoral researchers were offered only short-term contracts – of a few months – after their initial one or two-year contract expired. One research participant described what his supervisor did when she perceived at the end of his first two-year contract that he might not be able to finish his PhD:

she [supervisor] told me that she was only going to sign my contract for three months. … So that will give me like the added pressure and should be like a testing time, if I was going to be able to finish my PhD.

Following an evaluation after the first three months, the supervisor planned to continue extending this IDS’s contract every three months rather than offer him a longer-term contract.

Supervisors Using the PhD Students’ Status as Internationals

For IDSs coming from outside the European Union (EU), the supervisors’ control over their funding was also linked to the control over the PhD students’ immigration status. To stay in an EU country, non-EU students need to prove they have financial means to do so – and if their contract ends, that is put at risk.

One research participant shared how his supervisor explicitly referred to her control over his stay in the country:

she [supervisor] told me if I didn’t meet … all the deadlines that she had made for this project … she wouldn’t sign my contract and … that would put my residence here in [the country] and in Europe at risk, if I didn’t do exactly what she said. So that was openly like a threat. … so I think she used that. I mean … like a point of power, like … your stay here [in this country] relies on me.

Another narrative underlying some of our interviewees’ accounts was their perception that IDSs were more vulnerable to exploitation by their supervisors. One interviewee explained that he was “ an easy target for her [supervisor] ” because “ [s]he thought it doesn’t matter how bad she treats me or any other international students. ” He speculated that this group of PhD students was less likely to discontinue their doctorates because it was more difficult for them to find another opportunity in a country away from home. Thus, they were likely to put up with more mistreatment than their local counterparts.

Challenging Supervisors’ Control

As the previous examples illustrate, supervisors exercised and abused their control in various aspects of the PhD students’ lives. Although in most cases, doctoral students were aware of this control and openly spoke about it, it also seemed to be understood that there was little they could do to counter it. In the words of one IDS, “ nobody ever dared to talk to the professors .”

Those who brought up issues to their supervisors were often disappointed and disillusioned with the results. Some IDSs reported that challenging their supervisors resulted in the supervisors becoming furious, storming out of the room or threatening the PhD student with no contract renewal.

Another problem identified by our research participants was that there was simply not enough oversight of what was actually going on behind the scenes. An IDS shared,

apparently I was one of the many who had been quitting in this lab, which is strange because I thought, come on, there has to be some kind of follow-up on this … In the same lab, you have all these students quitting, don’t you think you have a problem? With this group?

At the same time, this PhD researcher seemed resigned to the situation. When asked if she had officially approached anyone about her issues, she responded,

I didn’t because who’s my reference? … I mean what is going to change, really, you know? I didn’t see it was going to help me out. Or who to go to, to begin with.

This notion that professors were somehow ‘untouchable’ was echoed in a number of doctoral researchers’ accounts. As a result, in relation to issues with their supervisors, only two of our interviewees used official university resources such as filing an official complaint with the faculty ombudsman or speaking to the internationalization office.

Moreover, these university resources did little to help the PhD students who approached them. One IDS who got in touch with the internationalization office and the office overseeing her scholarship was told they could not help her because “ this is quite a [personality] problem. So it’s not very academic. So they can’t really interfere .”

Another doctoral student shared how the faculty ombudsman dismissed and joked about his complaints when his supervisor offered him a series of short-term contracts in place of a longer one. Moreover, the intervention had no effect on the supervisor and his supervisor later explained to the PhD student that this practice was legal – and therefore acceptable.

Breaking the Cycle of Control

In the doctoral researchers’ accounts above, we see how supervisors, due to their seniority and institutionalized positions of power, may exercise and abuse their control over various aspects of the doctoral journey. For a number of our interviewees, this abuse was made worse due to their international status .

The fact that supervisors have the power to undertake the actions like those we illustrate above with limited to no consequences speaks to a much larger issue. We are no longer talking about a few bad apples in the barrel, but a systematic problem occurring across academia , as evident from the abovementioned surveys initiated by Nature (Lauchlan 2019) and the Max Planck Society (Max Planck PhDnet Survey Group 2020).

But this cycle of power imbalance does not need to continue. The change begins by rethinking how we characterize the doctorate. In academia folklore, the doctorate is often fashioned as a trial, a time of enormous hardship, of which only the fittest survive – but not without battle scars. Instead of seeing the doctorate as a grueling rite of passage, we need to shift our focus to building confident, empowered scholars , who value collaboration over competition.

Such change can be sparked by focusing on practices embedded within the institutional environment. In our practitioner-geared publication, Pathways to Practice: Supporting International Doctoral Students , we discuss in detail the small and larger steps institutions, supervisors and (international) doctoral students can take to create an inclusive doctoral experience for both international and local PhD students.

In this blog post, we would like to highlight two steps university stakeholders can take to ensure a more empowering institutional environment:

• We encourage institutions to set up training for supervisor s to reflect on their supervision styles and the assumptions embedded within them. Supervisors should also gain insight into giving constructive feedback and building professional partnerships with PhD students.
• We propose a number of formal and informal support structures institutions may make available to doctoral students, ranging from setting up an independent ombudsperson to forming peer and collegial support communities, such as study groups, workshops and online forums.

However, the concerns we raise in this blog post about power imbalances in the relationship between doctoral supervisors and their students are symptomatic of a phenomenon occurring across all levels of academia: the privileged few have power over the subordinate majority. Consequently, the larger question at stake is: how do we change deeply ingrained behaviors in academia that perpetuate inequalities?

Some of these issues are complex and may require a system-level overhaul, but others are within our reach. The relatively simple change actions we propose above can be a good starting point for how we want to shape the next generation of scholars. Let us begin by bringing the discussion of power abuse in academia into the light and, step by step, empower doctoral students, supervisors and institutions to break free of the cycle of control .

Adams, K., & Cargill, M. (2003). Knowing that the other knows: using experience and reflection to enhance communication in cross-cultural postgraduate supervisory relationships. Christchurch: paper presented at Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Conference.

Adrian-Taylor, S. R., Noels, K. A., & Tischler, K. (2007). Conflict between international graduate students and faculty supervisors: toward effective conflict prevention and management strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education , 11 (1), 90–117.

Campbell, T. A. (2015). A phenomenological study on international doctoral students’ acculturation experiences at a US university. Journal of International Students , 5 (3), 285–299.

Cotterall, S. (2015). The rich get richer: international doctoral candidates and scholarly identity. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 52 (4), 360–370.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: analysis of baseline demographic data from the Ph.D. Completion Project. Washington D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools.

Gardner, S. K. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education , 58 (1), 97–112.

Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education , 76 (6), 669–700.

Groenvynck, H., Vandevelde, K., & Van Rossem, R. (2013). The PhD track: who succeeds, who drops out? Research Evaluation , 22 (4), 199–209.

Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies – forty years of journal discussion: where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 8 (6), 83–104.

Lauchlan, E. (2019). Nature PhD survey 2019. London: Shift Learning. Available on: https://figshare.com/s/74a5ea79d76ad66a8af8 Last accessed on 22 October 2020.

Laufer, M., & Gorup, M. (2020). Pathways to practice: supporting international doctoral students. Amsterdam: EAIE. Available on: https://www.eaie.org/our-resources/library/publication/Pathways-to-practice/pathways-to-practice-supporting-international-doctoral-students.html Last accessed on 22 October 2020.

Laufer, M., & Gorup, M. (2019). The invisible Others: stories of international doctoral student dropout. Higher Education , 78 (1), 165–181.

Le, T., & Gardner, S. K. (2010). Understanding the doctoral experience of Asian international students in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields: an exploration of one institutional context. Journal of College Student Development , 51 (3), 252–264.

Leijen, Ä., Lepp, L., & Remmik, M. (2016). Why did I drop out? Former students’ recollections about their study process and factors related to leaving the doctoral studies. Studies in Continuing Education , 38 (2), 129–144.

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: the causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Max Planck PhDnet Survey Group. (2020). Survey report 2019. Available on: https://www.phdnet.mpg.de/145345/PhDnet_Survey_Report_2019.pdf Last accessed on 22 October 2020.

Mayuzumi, K., Motobayashi, K., Nagayama, C., & Takeuchi, M. (2007). Transforming diversity in Canadian higher education: a dialogue of Japanese women graduate students. Teaching in Higher Education , 12 (5–6), 581–592.

Metcalfe, J., Wilson, S., & Levecque, K. (2018). Exploring wellbeing and mental health and associated support services for postgraduate researchers. Cambridge: Vitae. Available on: https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/wellbeing-and-mental-health/HEFCE-Report_Exploring-PGR-Mental-health-support/view Last accessed on 22 October 2020.

OECD. (n.d.). OECD.Stat: graduates by field. Available on: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EDU_GRAD_FIELD Last accessed on 22 October 2020.

OECD. (2020). Education at a glance 2020: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Vassil, K., & Solvak, M. (2012). When failing is the only option: explaining failure to finish PhDs in Estonia. Higher Education , 64 (4), 503–516.

Williams, S. (2019). Postgraduate research experience survey 2019. York: Advance HE. Available on: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/postgraduate-research-experience-survey-2019 Last accessed 22 October 2020.

There are so many issues with the quality and attitude of supervisers, in my view – at least in the UK system.

Some of the challenges that I experienced were:- 1) A supervisor who spent a lot of time telling me how certain people (and even a faculty member) – and he named names – had only got their PhDs because he had written their thesis for them, or built their experiemental equipment, run their clinical trials etc. He seemed to almost believe that the world did not turn without his assistance.

2) He regularly wanted to take-over and design or work-out sections for me. I kept telling him that I wanted it to be my work and that the only way I could learn was to do the work. I wanted to know that I had earned it, but he did not stop or respect that and it caused disagreement and bad feeling.

3) There was no help or understanding for the things I really needed his help with; a poor administration where my ID card/computer and library access kept beinng cancelled every three weeks for three years. A computer that could not cope with all I demanded of it and could not cope with the extensive calculations and graphics processing.

4) There was never any time or interest in discussing what I had learned or discovered during my work – I felt so cut-off and isolated. For me, the joy of a doctorate was learning something surprising and new. But this was lost, as I had no one to share it with.

5) His mood would either be over the top nice, where everything was wonderful – or utterly condemning and condescending, depending on the day. So during one meeting I might feel pleased with myself and during the next, for exactly the same points of discussion, suddenly my work was complete rubbish. So I could never trust or believe him either way and that left me feeling wary, on-edge and bewildered.

6) Many supervisors appear to have little understanding or concern for the university rules and purpose of supervising and just muddle along doing whatever they deem fit.

7) Many have long forgotten the struggles and loneliness of research at doctoral level and view students as cannon fodder.

8) When I tried to raise a complaint, they just closed ranks and ignored me. The only way to get them to address my supervisory issues was to go through the formal complaints process and ask for it to be looked at by another faculty. The result was them saying that they had added my supervisor to a “watch list” and they would have liked to get rid of him, but for legal reasons they could not. But they still let him supervise !

9) The university seemed to be split into a myriad of defensive islands that were at war with each other and no one really listened or helped. Whenever a problem arose, the standard practice seemed to be to refer the person to another group of department and then it turn, that group would deny responsibility and you would be passed somewhere else – and so it would go on. In my case, even writing an e-mail to the “President” (as Vice-chancellors like to call themselves now – how pretenious) and the VP Education got nowhere, as my complaint as bounced back to my faculty – who continued to ignore it. So what was the point of the falsely proclaimed “exceptional student experience” ?

10) Faculty like to think that they work really hard and I am sure some do – but my research group/faculty would disappear for two hour lunches and, on Fridays, never come back until Monday. My supervisor would often not turn-up for supervisory meetings and I would find him having coffee and hiding behind a broad-sheet newspaper in the nearby Costa Coffee.

11) The best part was when my supervisor recommended a comference for me – which I paid the fees, booked the flights etc for – only to discover that it did not exist and was a phoney/scam conference. When I complained, he claimed that I had not paid attention – fortunately, I kept a copy of his e-mail with the link he sent me to that supposed conference.

12) When I finally started with a new supervisor, he was upset because the reearch topic I had been given by the previous Professor was actually an area he had “taken” from my new Professor. So I was dragged into a long-standing, ‘silent’ war of mistrust between them.

13) There was an unspoken but firm ritual where other academics names might be added to a paper’s author list, even though they had no involvement – just to boost a colleague’s research profile.

The fundamental issue seems to me to be the lack of supervision of supervisors. It all seems to work on the principles of a gentlemen’s club, where – when something goes wrong – no one mentions or acknowledges it. The academic equivalent of a black hole could open-up and they would just walk around it and comment on how clear the sky was around there. SO bizarre..,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

First we need to confirm, that you're human. ninety six ÷ = forty eight

Author info

Meta Gorup is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent at Ghent University in Belgium. Her research explores topics in research management and doctoral education through the lens of university members’ identities and university cultures.

Melissa Laufer is a senior researcher in the research programme “Knowledge &; Society” at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. She is interested in investigating change processes at universities.

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

What can your PhD supervisor do for you?

4 ways to a more productive relationship.

Gemma Conroy

Credit: Thomas Barwick/Getty

31 March 2020

Thomas Barwick/Getty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Be clear about expectations from the start

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

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

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

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

2. Agree on achievable goals

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

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

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

3. Help students be independent and collaborative

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

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

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

4. Keep communication open

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

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

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

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
• J Adv Med Educ Prof
• v.5(4); 2017 Oct

PhD supervisor-student relationship

Filipe prazeres.

1 Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade da Beira Interior, 6200-506 Covilhã, Portugal

2 Family Health Unit Beira Ria, 3830-596 Gafanha da Nazaré, Portugal

To the Editor,

The relationship between the PhD supervisor and the PhD student is a complex one. When this relationship is neither effective nor efficient, it may yield negative consequences, such as academic failure ( 1 ).

The intricacy of the supervisor-student relationship may be in part comparable to the one between the physician and his/her patient [see, for example ( 2 )]. Both interactions develop over several years and the players involved in each relationship - PhD supervisor-student on the one side and physician-patient on the other side - may at some point of the journey develop different expectations of one another [see, for example ( 3 , 4 )] and experience emotional distress ( 5 ). In both relationships, the perceived satisfaction with the interaction will contribute to the success or failure of the treatment in one case, and in the other, the writing of a thesis. To improve the mentioned satisfaction, not only there is a need to invest time ( 6 ), as does the physician to his/her patients, but also both the supervisor and the PhD student must be willing to negotiate a research path to follow that would be practical and achievable. The communication between the physician and patient is of paramount importance for the provision of health care ( 7 ), and so is the communication between the supervisor and PhD student which encourages the progression of both the research and the doctoral study ( 8 ).

As to a smooth transition to the postgraduate life, supervisors should start thinking about providing the same kind of positive reinforcement that every student is used to experience in the undergraduate course. The recognition for a job well done will mean a lot for a PhD student, as it does for a patient. Onegood example is the increase in medication compliance by patients with high blood pressure who receive positive reinforcement from their physicians ( 9 ).

Supervisors can organize regular meetings for (and with) PhD students in order to not only discuss their projects but also improve their coping skills, including critical thinking and problem-solving methods ( 5 ). The act of sharingknowledge and experiences can motivate the PhD students to persevere in their studies ( 10 ).

When needed, supervisors should use their power of influence to increase the time that the student has available to devote to research while maintaining a part of their employment activities (healthcare-related or not), since many PhD students are also full-time workers.

Last but not least, supervisors and faculty membersmust encourage PhD students to pursue the available funding opportunities. Socioeconomic problems are known to be an issue for PhD students ( 5 ). Without the supervisor’s support - by dealing with PhD student’s emotions and personality -, research time, funding, and the student’s proactiviness, the doctoral journey may not attainsuccess.

Conflict of interests: there is no conflict of interest.

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Cover Image

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

Your supervision filter

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

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

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

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Centred Supervisory Leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Resources

Supervising PhDs

UKCGE Good Supervisory Practice Framework .

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

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

Get Email Alerts

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Board of Directors
• Classifieds
• Apartments Near UF

UF graduate students balance parenthood with PhDs

Some struggle to find resources.

Bridget Newell glanced down beside her, her son’s forehead barely appearing at the corner of her computer screen. An action figure was in his hand. She asked him to go play while she answered a few questions. It’s a familiar scene.

Being a parent and a Ph.D. candidate at the same time is synonymous with having a full plate. However, graduate students at UF make it work. 

Newell, a 35-year-old UF Ph.D. student in curriculum and instruction, has had to learn how to balance her responsibilities as a mother and a student. She has two sons, 11 and 5 years old. 

Newell gets to spend more time at home now that being a graduate student is her full-time job. Her schedule is more catered to what she needs to get done, like having Fridays open to take her sons to the doctor. She said she’s lucky she has a spouse who can carry most of the financial burden. 

“I just have more flexibility in how I choose to work and when I choose to work,” she said. 

But it’s not always easy. If she focuses more on her research or classes for a few days, she has to order takeout instead of cooking. 

During her first semester, many of her classes were in the evenings. She missed dinner time with her sons and husband multiple times a week because she had a class from 4 to 7 p.m. 

She said having more classes available during the day could be helpful for graduate students with families. 

As a mother and a student, she’s learned to compromise. She recognizes choosing higher education is a sacrifice, but she’s glad that her sons get to see more of her, she said. 

Michelle Commeret, a 41-year-old UF Ph.D. candidate in curriculum and instruction, also teaches multiple courses during the Fall, Spring and Summer semesters. She has three daughters: ages 13, 11 and 8.

She didn’t know any specific resources for graduate students who have families. She knew family housing could be helpful for a lot of graduate students, but it didn’t make sense for her family. 

“There wasn't really a lot of space for parents that have more than like one or two [kids],” Commeret said. “So I didn't even really entertain that for very long.”

Family always comes first to Commeret. However, she has to make sure she’s “not shortchanging” her obligations as a mother, teacher, researcher and student. 

“My work impacts my family, and my family impacts my work all the time,” she said. 

Thankfully, her adviser has been very accommodating, she said. He encourages her to take breaks and spend time with her family.

Her family followed her to Florida so she could get her Ph.D. She does it all for her family — she wants to show her daughters what it looks like to work hard and meet a goal, she said. 

“They’ve been my number-one fans from the beginning,” she said. 

Nanjie Rao is a 29-year-old UF computer science Ph.D. student. He and his wife, who is also a Ph.D. student, had their 18-month-old daughter in September 2022. 

After his daughter was born, his wife went on an unpaid, six-week maternity leave. However, after Graduate Assistants United won eight weeks of paid family leave, Rao took the opportunity to spend time with his newborn during Spring 2023.

He noticed how the dynamic between a graduate student and their adviser can get strained. New parents stress about taking care of their new baby, while advisers still expect tasks to be completed. 

“I understand where the angriness comes from, but it's still difficult, to say the least,” Rao said.

Rao has been on the waitlist for BabyGators, an on-campus child day care, for two years. Although he was aware of the possibility of being waitlisted, he wished the day care could have more staff so more children could be accommodated. 

Like many other students with children, his main challenge is balancing all his roles, he said. He needed to fulfill his responsibilities as a TA while working on his dissertation. His goal is “just to get by every day.” 

“There’s not quite balancing, per se,” he said. 

Richelle Ruiz had her daughter in September 2023, around a month into her first semester. She’s also pursuing a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction. Her daughter is now 6 months old. 

The 31-year-old was brand-new to campus and Gainesville when her daughter was born, so she didn’t know where to look for resources or what to ask for.

She learned about the lactation rooms on campus after her daughter was born. UF has lactation rooms at various locations, including the Reitz Union, Library West, Marston Science Library, Norman Hall, Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and the UF Health Science Center Library. There is also an app called Mamava, which helps users map available rooms and pods across campus.

Ruiz is still adjusting to being a student and parent. 

“I just feel like I'm going to look back on this time and feel proud of myself, and I hope that my daughter feels the same way,” she said. “I want to be that kind of role model for her.”

Contact Delia Rose Sauer at [email protected]. Follow her on X @_delia_rose_.

Delia Rose Sauer is a second-year journalism major and the graduate & professional school reporter for The Alligator. In her free time, she loves drawing, crocheting and exploring music genres.

Florida men’s basketball: Updates on Handlogten, adjusting without him and preparing for two teams By Bennett Solomon | Mar. 20

Florida men’s basketball prepares for NCAA Tournament as No. 7 seed without Handlogten By Bennett Solomon and Max Tucker | Mar. 18

Crime, trash and parties: How Florida residents feel about spring break By Annie Wang | Mar. 18

Message from an alumnus: Get off the sidelines and restore DEI By Mark Shmueli | Mar. 18

UF implements early action starting Fall ‘24 By Annie Wang | Mar. 21

Alachua County primary election season reflects low voter turnout, lack of faith among Republicans

Uplifting womanhood: What Gainesville women are doing to create meaningful connections

Roller derby team becomes a space for UF graduate students to skate stress away

Waterloo recognizes outstanding supervisors of graduate students

Celebrating professors from three faculties for their support and guidance of graduate students

Three Awards of Excellence in Graduate Supervision were recently announced recognizing faculty members from the Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics.  

“As an institution, we are committed to creating environments in which graduate students are empowered and supported as they pursue their academic, professional and personal successes,” says Jeff Casello, associate vice-president, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs. 

“The relationships between graduate students and their academic supervisors are critical to achieving this goal. Our colleagues who are receiving the Award of Excellence in Graduate Supervision have been and continue to be exceptional collaborators with and mentors to our students. We are thrilled to celebrate their vast contributions to the graduate community.”  

Dr. Peter Huck

Dr. Peter Huck is a professor and NSERC chair holder in Water Treatment in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He is an internationally recognized researcher who has made significant contributions to the field of water treatment and quality. His expertise in this area has led to multiple appointments to Ontario’s Advisory Council on Drinking Water Standards and Testing.

His outstanding scholarly output includes more than 800 articles in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings and book chapters, many of which were co-authored with graduate students. In recognition of this vital work, Dr. Huck was elected as a fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering in 2019. 

In his role as educator, Dr. Huck has graduated close to 100 PhD and master’s students and has supervised more than 15 postdoctoral scholars. He has been praised by students and colleagues for his mentorship and commitment to creating lasting connections with a new generation of engineers.  

As one former graduate student put it, “[Dr. Huck] is not merely an academic mentor but a lifelong friend who builds honest and genuine relationships with each of his students.”  

The conscientious and caring approach gives graduate students the best opportunity to succeed. Many of Dr. Huck’s students now occupy prestigious roles in academia and industry, a testament to his value as a teacher and research supervisor.  

Dr. David Rudolph

Throughout his impressive career at Waterloo, Dr. Rudolph has trained a cohort of six postdoctoral scholars, 18 PhD students and an astounding 65 master’s students, leaving an enduring footprint in hydrogeology. His students’ collective impact in academia, consulting and in government extends far beyond Canada’s borders, where, as groundwater experts, they continue to develop and influence sustainable groundwater practices, improving lives worldwide.  

Dr. Rudolph’s holistic supervisory approach emphasizes both scientific excellence and personal growth. Alumni and colleagues praise his mentorship and recognize it as more than the sum of its parts. Dr. Rudolph is a gifted researcher and an exceptional supervisor, and it is no surprise that he is a cherished favorite among students in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Dr. Rudolph embodies supervisory excellence and has contributed immensely to shaping both the academic and professional landscapes in hydrogeology and water resources in Canada and abroad. 

Dr. Raouf Boutaba

Since joining Waterloo in 1999, as a professor of computer science, Dr. Raouf Boutaba has held several academic appointments within the Faculty of Mathematics, including associate dean of Research from 2016 to 2019 and associate dean of Innovation and Entrepreneurship from 2019 to 2020 .  He is now the director of the Cheriton School of Computer Science, a position that was renewed for a four-year term beginning July 1, 2024. His many awards include being named a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and University Research Chair. 

Dr. Boutaba is known for his pioneering contributions to automated management, which led directly to the trend toward autonomic networking, and for his groundbreaking work on network virtualization and network softwarization that is revolutionizing the way communication networks are designed, operated and managed. The papers that Dr. Boutaba his students and collaborators have published have been cited more than 36,000 times with an h-index of 76 as of February 2024,according to Google Scholar.  

Over his career at Waterloo, Dr. Boutaba has supervised 24 doctoral and 47 master’s students and has advised 17 postdoctoral researchers. Five of his former PhD students have received prestigious awards for their dissertations, which include three Best Dissertation Awards, two Alumni Gold Medals, the Mathematics Doctoral Prize and the inaugural David R. Cheriton Distinguished Doctoral Dissertation Award.  

A common refrain in the letters submitted by Dr. Boutaba’s nominators note that he is a supportive and dedicated supervisor, who puts the interests of his graduate students ahead of his own, a mentor who instills upon his students the importance of diligence, technical excellence and rigour in research, and who helps them build the confidence to explore interesting ideas both independently and collaboratively. 

Related stories

Co-op Students of the Year make meaningful impacts on their workplaces

Waterloo announces winners of annual award for co-op students from each of the six faculties

Waterloo researchers awarded more than $51.2 million

Fifty-six researchers receive Government of Canada funding to solve some of humanity’s most critical problems

Royal Society of Canada honours Waterloo researchers

The Royal Society of Canada welcomes new fellows and members to the 2023 class of the RSC College

Find an expert

Find a COVID-19 expert

Contact Media Relations

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

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

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

• Funding opportunities
• Funding for partnerships with the Global South

China Scholarship Council (CSC program) - Information for PhD students and their promotors within the

Ghent University and the CSC jointly offer doctoral and postdoctoral scholarships to Chinese researchers.

Ghent University has a firm tradition of collaboration with Chinese research institutes and top universities in many disciplines. Ghent University and the CSC therefore jointly offer doctoral and postdoctoral scholarships to Chinese researchers. We welcome all Chinese students who visit our University in order to do a PhD , a jointly-supervised PhD (including double PhD degree), Post-doctoral research , as well as visiting scholars , who are coming here in order to conduct part of their research in the framework of their PhD . This page is specifically designed to support PhD students and their supervisors. The China Scholarship Council has many different programs that offer scholarships for doctoral studies.

The two most frequently used programs are:

Preference program of CSC

Ghent University has signed a cooperation agreement with the China Scholarship Council (CSC) to promote Ghent University as host institution for Chinese PhD students. This cooperation agreement will last for 5 years from 30 November 2023 until 30 November 2028 . Each year, Ghent University and CSC will select approximately 50 PhD students, who opt for Ghent University as their host institution and aim to earn a PhD degree either at Ghent University or through a Joint (or double) PhD program between Ghent University and their home university. Students selected under this preference program will be exempted from paying tuition, bench fees, or any other study-related costs at Ghent University. Additionally, the selected students will receive a small top-up scholarship of 230 euros per month from Ghent University, supplementing their CSC scholarship to ensure a total monthly income of 1580 euros (following the Ghent University policy on recommended financial support for PhD students). It's important to note that exchange or visiting PhD students, who are enrolled as PhD students at a Chinese university and intend to obtain their PhD degree solely from their home university in China, are ineligible to apply under the Preference Program. Exchange PhD students can apply for a scholarship in the framework of the Personal program of CSC with the support of a Ghent University supervisor instead. Deadline and information about the Preference program. For questions about the yearly call launched by Ghent University, please contact: [email protected]

Personal program of CSC

Chinese students who wish to pursue doctoral studies at Ghent University can also apply for a CSC Personal program scholarship . The CSC Personal program scholarship consists of a basic study allowance from CSC to the student. No standard supplement (top-up) is provided by Ghent University. Students with a Personal program CSC scholarship can benefit from fee waivers (bench fee and tuition fee). However, they are not automatically entitled to a top-up funding at Ghent University such as preference CSC students. Please note that the monthly amount paid by CSC to each CSC scholarship holder (1350 euros) does not correspond to the recommended minimum income for Ghent University doctoral students (1580 euros). Ghent University advises future PhD students without a minimum of 1580 euro/month that they should discuss their financial situation with their supervisor. In cases where the scholarship is too low, and no other means are available, Ghent University advises supervisors to consider topping up the grant of the PhD students to 1580 euro. Where this is not possible, both student and supervisors should consider whether the PhD project should be progressed in its current form.

Ghent University guideline concerning financial means for phd students .

All information about the CSC scholarship in the framework of the Personal program is available on the official website of CSC.  This website also contains more than 60 pages of guidelines in Mandarin Chinese clearly stipulating all the requirements and the procedure for application in general.

!!! Point of attention: Candidates cannot simultaneously apply for a CSC scholarship both in the framework of the Preference program and a Personal program of CSC in China. Applicants for the UGent-CSC Preference program must first submit a pre-selection application in Ghent. Only Ghent University pre-selected candidates can then submit a CSC preference application to CSC in China. Candidates who are not pre-selected by Ghent University can decide, in consultation with their supervisor, whether to submit a CSC application under the Personal program instead. Only when you actually receive the CSC scholarship and can provide a CSC Confirmation Grant Letter, you will be able to enroll as PhD student at Ghent University and receive the tuition fee waiver and bench fee waiver.

Note for Ghent University supervisors: CSC does not provide a bench fee. This means that your department will bear the research costs of the PhD student. CSC standardly requires scholarship applicants (both preference and personal) to be exempt from any study costs. Therefore, an exemption from tuition fees and bench fees is always necessary.

1. Who is eligible

You must have Chinese nationality, and meet eligibility requirements of CSC.

For a full PhD (4 years)

You are a last-year Master student from a Chinese university (4-year scholarship) Or a last-year Master student from a university outside of China (4-year scholarship) Or a student who already obtained a Master degree (4-year scholarship) Or a first-year PhD student currently enrolled in a university outside of China (3-year scholarship) For an exchange PhD (< 1 year) You are a current PhD student enrolled in a Chinese university

For a joint PhD (2 years – 6 years)

You are a current PhD student enrolled in a Chinese university

Ghent University offers two kinds of jointly supervised PhD programs :

1. Student researchers who are visiting Ghent University to perform research in the context of their PhD (for which they are enrolled at another university) and who intend to obtain a PhD degree at their Chinese home university only, are considered as ‘exchange’ PhD-students at Ghent University. maximum duration <12 months.

2. Jointly supervised PhD students who wish to obtain a double/Joint PhD degrees from both Ghent University and their home university in China are considered as ‘ Joint PhD’ students at Ghent University. They need an joint PhD agreement signed by their supervisors at Ghent University and Chinese university. The agreement contains elements such as: form of degree, authorship for publications and intellectual property, jury composition, place of defense, tuition fee, etc.

2. Language

English at level B2 is required for a PhD study at Ghent University. The supervisor can also confirm that the student has the required level of English . The candidates who obtained a UGent-CSC scholarship are fully exempted from the APS screening procedure (APS certificate) since the academic year 2018-2019. CSC grant holders selected in the framework of the Preference program and Personal program of CSC will be automatically exempted based on the lists of selected CSC candidates provided by CSC to Ghent University via the Chinese Embassy in Brussels. 

3. CSC Application & admission

If you consider to apply for a CSC scholarship, the first step is to approach a professor in your research area. All applications require the explicit commitment of a Ghent University professor who will act as your PhD supervisor. Once you have found a professor who is willing to become your supervisor (‘promotor’), you can jointly prepare your application. Candidates can look for a Ghent University supervisor in their domain of interest by browsing the list of faculties and research topics : Candidates for a CSC scholarship are not automatically admitted to doctoral studies at Ghent University. All CSC applicants should add an official Ghent University Letter of Admission/Letter of Invitation to their CSC application. A personal invitation letter from their professor/future supervisor will not be accepted.

Therefore, students & supervisors are strongly advised to initiate the admission/registration procedure for the doctoral program in time and before the CSC application. Upon the finalization of the admission procedure at Ghent University, the Ghent University student administration will email a Letter of Admission (LOA) or a Letter of invitation (LOI) to the student. This letter must be included in the CSC application, confirming to CSC that, if selected for the CSC scholarship, the student will be welcome as a PhD student at Ghent University. It will also confirm that CSC scholarship students are exempt from additional study costs at Ghent University (i.e., tuition and bench fees). Additionally, the letter will specify the expected duration of the PhD study (4 years on average) and the language of instruction (English for international PhD students).

1. Admission Information on how to become admitted as a full PhD degree student:

The admission procedure at Ghent University needs to be initiated by the Ghent University supervisor through the Oasis-tool. This is a mostly administrative procedure during which the academic aspects (equivalence of your degree, research proposal and language skills) will be evaluated. Students are advised to ask their promotor to start this procedure in a timely manner and hand in all documents to the Registrar's Office as requested.

2. Information on how to become admitted as a Joint PhD degree student:

• First contact the student administration services of your home institution to make sure that joint PhD’s can be awarded there. Make sure you have a supervisor at both institutions.

• Start the admission procedure at Ghent University. The admission procedure at Ghent University needs to be initiated by the Ghent University supervisor. This is a mostly administrative procedure during which the academic aspects (equivalence of your degree, research proposal and language skills) will be evaluated.

Students are advised to ask their promotor to start this procedure in a timely manner and hand in all documents to the Registrar's Office as requested.

• After being awarded a CSC scholarship, you can take further steps to arrange a joint doctoral degree. You will need an joint PhD agreement signed by your supervisors at Ghent University and your Chinese university. Candidates must be admitted and enrolled at Ghent University before a joint PhD agreement can be finalized—but the joint PhD process can be initiated before the enrolment is complete. It is often wise to do so, as the negotiation of a joint PhD agreement can take time.

All information about how to start a Joint PhD can be found here.

3. Information on how to become admitted as an Exchange PhD student:

New exchange-PhD candidates initiate the application here .

Students who are admitted as a future exchange PhD student will receive an official Ghent University Invitation letter (LOI). This Letter will guarantee that CSC funded PhD students will be able to study at Ghent University without paying tuition and bench fees. This letter will also mention the expected duration of study and the language of study. Supervisors can include a Letter of Support with the application. If needed, supervisors can request the template for this letter by emailing to [email protected] .

Please check our highly informative webpage for students with external funding . It contains essential information regarding what steps to take before traveling to Belgium and what to do upon arrival.

• Back Issues
• Letters Policy

Volume 56 | ISSUE 15: March 22, 2024

2024-25 academic calendar holds a few surprises.

By SUSAN JONES

The 2024-25 academic calendar for Pitt , which was approved last week, has some notable changes from recent years.

In both semesters, there is a longer gap between the last day of finals and undergraduate commencement. But in contrast to previous year, final grades must be submitted before the graduation ceremony, which shortens the time for instructors to complete grading.

In several previous years, finals week ended on Friday before the Sunday undergraduate commencement and grades were not due until the next week.

Juan Manfredi, chair of the calendar committee and professor of mathematics, said the change for the fall is the result of the Thanksgiving break being the last week of November.

The addition of a two-day fall break in October, “made it necessary to add  two more days of classes after Thanksgiving. That is why classes end on a Tuesday — Dec. 10,” he said. “ In addition, we don’t want the students to have only one week of classes after the Thanksgiving break.”

The Senate’s Educational Policies committee at its March 22 meeting had the same concerns about the academic calendar for this fall, when grades are due two days after finals end. In the spring there is a three-day period to complete grading.

“There are so many competing priorities when one is setting a calendar,” said Amanda Godley, vice provost for graduate studies, who offers monthly reports to the group. “I have never seen a calendar discussed as much as next year’s calendar” before it was decided. “We have no exact answers” for the conundrums posed by a late Thanksgiving and the need for staff to get final grades into Pitt’s systems, she added. “Those were conversations that happened … (but) there is no magic insert” to solve this calendar problem.

John Stoner, Educational Policies co-chair and history faculty member in the Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences, and others on the committee suggested that this was a good time to consider ways to avoid a comprehensive end-of-term exam that is time-consuming to grade — perhaps by instituting more and smaller assessments throughout the course or by implementing a different sort of assessment at the end. They also suggested this would ease the burden on the teaching and learning center, as center officials outlined at last month’s committee meeting .

In the spring, classes start on Wednesday, Jan. 8, “to give time to the academic staff and advisors to process academic actions as much as possible before classes begin.” Staff return to the office on Thursday, Jan. 2.

Once the Martin King Luther Jr. holiday and spring recess are added in, “the rest is determined by the number of days left,” Manfredi said. Commencement is always on a Sunday, usually at the end of April, but had to be pushed to May 4 for 2025.

The other significant change is that on Election Day — Tuesday, Nov. 5 — classes will be remote, except for labs.

Manfredi said the Student Government Board representative on the calendar committee “suggested that we cancel classes on Election Day. The committee opted for making this day remote, except for labs,  so that we would not have to add one more Tuesday to the academic calendar (no more Tuesdays were available).”

The winter recess for faculty and staff will include eight weekdays (Monday, Dec. 23 through Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2025), as opposed to this year’s break, which only had six weekdays, because of how the holidays fell.

FOR FALL 2024:

Aug. 19-25: Welcome week

Aug. 26 (Monday): Classes start

Sept. 2 : Labor Day

Oct. 14-15 (Monday-Tuesday): Fall break for students

Nov. 24-Dec. 1 : Thanksgiving recess for students

Nov. 28-29 : Thanksgiving recess for faculty and staff (University closed)

Dec. 10 (Tuesday): Last day for undergraduate classes

Dec. 11-17 (Wednesday-Tuesday): Final exam period for undergraduate classes

Dec. 19 : Fall term grades must be approved by instructors by 11:59 p.m.

Dec. 22 (Sunday): December commencement. This is the second year for this convocation, which includes undergraduate and graduate students.

Dec. 23-Jan. 1, 2025 : Winter recess for faculty and staff

FOR WINTER/SPRING 2025:

Jan. 2 (Thursday): University offices and buildings reopen and employees come back to work.

Jan. 8 (Wednesday): Spring term classes begin

Jan. 20: Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday observed (University closed)

March 2-9 : Spring recess for students

March 7 : Spring holiday for faculty and staff (University closed)

April 22 (Tuesday): Last day for undergraduate classes

April 24-30 (Thursday-Wednesday): Final exam period for undergraduate classes

May 3 : Spring term grades must be approved by instructors by 11:59 p.m.

May 4 (Sunday): Annual undergraduate commencement

Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at [email protected] or 724-244-4042.

Have a story idea or news to share?  Share  it with the University Times.

Follow the University Times on  Twitter  and  Facebook.

Stockton University is ranked among the top public universities in the Northeast with more than 160 undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as continuing education opportunities. The University, one hour from Philadelphia and two hours from New York City, offers unique living and learning environments throughout southern New Jersey, including the 1,600-acre Galloway campus in the Pinelands National Reserve and Stockton University Atlantic City, located in the University District, just steps from the beach and the iconic Atlantic City Boardwalk. Additional locations include Hammonton, Manahawkin and Woodbine. As a public university, Stockton provides an environment for excellence to a diverse student body, including those from underrepresented populations, through an interdisciplinary approach to liberal arts, sciences, and professional education. Founded in 1969, Stockton held its first classes in 1971. The University’s commitment to cultural diversity and its welcoming and vibrant community makes Stockton a great place to learn and work! Learn more about the many reasons to choose Stockton at www.Stockton.edu .

Faculty and Staff are committed to support Stockton University’s commitment to diversity and strong student-centered vision and mission.

This is an in-person on campus, non-remote position. The University has implemented a pilot program allowing employees to work either a compressed 4-day work week with extended workdays or may work from home one day a week. Participation is subject to Divisional Executive approval depending on operational need.

Graduate Coordinator, Campus Center Operations (2024) - Stockton University Students Only

• Galloway, New Jersey
• Campus Center Operations
• Graduate Coordinator
• Opening on: Mar 21 2024

Location:  Galloway - Main Campus

Department: Campus Center Operations

Salary Information:  $19.50

Work Hours:  15-20 hours weekly

Brief Job Overview/Summary

The Office of Event Services & Campus Center Operations is seeking a responsible and motivated individual who can work a flexible daytime/evening/weekend schedule. This position is excellent training for individuals who seek a career in higher education, student affairs or public service. It offers hands-on experience in the following areas: training, supervision, program planning, event management, marketing, facility management, assessment and evaluation. **Candidates must be enrolled as a fully-matriculated Graduate Student at Stockton University during the time of employment

Work Hours:

• Commitment of approximately 15-20 hours weekly
• July – May; primarily evening hours and weekends; some daytime hours
• Winter and Spring breaks, as needed
• Respond to emergency situations, as needed

Descriptions of Essential Duties/Responsibilities:

The Graduate Coordinator for Campus Center Operations, under overall the supervision of the Director of Campus Center Operations and the daily supervision of the Facility Coordinator of Campus Center Programs will be responsible for the following: Facilities Management

• Provide evening and weekend coverage and supervision of the Campus Center
• Respond to, address, and report facility and personnel related conditions and emergencies
• Manage commuter locker and other equipment rentals
• Maintain charging station equipment
• Conduct frequent building rounds and facility/equipment checks for the campus center

Student Employment

• Assist with the daily supervision of undergraduate student staff and provide front-line support in the absence of full-time staff
• Assist with the coordination and implementation of student employment program including: training, assessment, recognition, community service, and teambuilding
• Assist with the student employment recruitment process and participate in applicant interviews

General Office/Operations Management

• Prepare and file event confirmations for Campus Center Operations staff
• Maintain inventories and replenish supplies
• Provide back-up support to the game room and information desk operations as needed
• Assist with customer service assessment/satisfaction surveys
• Attend staff meetings and service provider meetings (i.e. ITS, Catering, event planning meetings)
• Other duties as assigned by the Assistant Dean/Director, Associate Director, or Facility Coordinators
• Support Stockton University’s diversity commitment and strong student-centered vision and mission

Programming and Marketing

• Conduct and/or manage in-person and/or virtual events
• Assist with the maintenance of social media accounts such as Instagram/Facebook
• Assist with the marketing of services and programs offered by the Campus Center and Event Services

  Required Qualifications

• Candidates must be enrolled as a fully-matriculated graduate student at Stockton University during the time of employment
• Earned Bachelor’s degree with prior experience that demonstrates an understanding of leadership and student engagement

  Preferred Qualifications:

• Strong oral and written communication skills
• Strong sense of professionalism, enthusiasm, flexibility, organization, and self-motivation
• Ability to work independently and collaboratively

Screening Information: Screening of applications begins immediately and will continue until the position is filled.

How to Apply: To apply please visit https://employment.stockton.edu or click the "Apply" button. Only electronic documents will be accepted. Please complete the online application and include one professional references in addition to the following required documents. All required documents (Microsoft Word of PDF) must be submitted in order for your application to move forward. 

• A letter of interest describing qualifications and accomplishments
• Current resume

Please note:

• Stockton University is an equal opportunity institution encouraging a diverse pool of applicants.  Pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, Stockton University prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex (including, but not limited to the prohibition of sexual misconduct and relationship violence, sexual assault and harassment) in all of its educational programs and activities. Please visit http://www.stockton.edu/affirmative_action for information on Stockton's Equal Opportunity and Institutional Compliance processes. The University provides reasonable accommodations as appropriate. An applicant may request a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process by contacting Bart Musitano, Manager for University Pensions and Benefits within the Office of Human Resources (Main Campus, J-115) at 609-652-4384, Monday-Friday between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
• All offers of employment are contingent upon a favorable background check, which may include social intelligence from a consumer reporting agency.
• In accordance with the New Jersey First Act P.L. 2011 c.70, effective September 1, 2011, new public employees (faculty exempt) are required to obtain New Jersey residency within one (1) year of employment. Applicants must meet the requirements listed.
• Pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crimes Statistics Act (Clery Act), prospective employees may access Stockton’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report (ASFSR) at https://www.stockton.edu/police/crime-statistics.html . The ASFSR contains the previous three years of reported Clery Act crime statistics, fire safety information and information regarding campus and personal safety. Paper copies of the report are available at the Stockton University Police Department, building 71, 101 Vera King Farris Drive, Galloway Township, NJ, or call 609-652-4390, to request that a copy be sent via postal mail.

 Apply now!

Sign up for Job Alerts!

Share this job with a friend!

Thank you - we've sent an email with job to the person you entered.

Refer someone to this job

• Office of the President
• Read Stockton Now
• Media Resources
• Do Business With Stockton
• University Alerts
• Safety Information
• Statements & Policies

Additional Locations

• Atlantic City

Stockton University 101 Vera King Farris Drive Galloway, NJ 08205-9441 (609) 652-1776 Maps, Directions & Parking Accessibility Statement

Stockton University is an Equal Opportunity Institution © 2022 Stockton University