phd advisor relationship

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

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Head of Evidence to Action

Supply Chain - Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

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

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

Managing up: how to communicate effectively with your PhD adviser

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

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

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Related Articles

Why you need an agenda for meetings with your principal investigator

• Research management

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

How to harness AI’s potential in research — responsibly and ethically

Career Feature 23 AUG 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Partners in drug discovery: how to collaborate with non-governmental organizations

Full-Time Faculty Member in Molecular Agrobiology at Peking University

Faculty positions in molecular agrobiology, including plant (crop) molecular biology, crop genomics and agrobiotechnology and etc.

Beijing, China

School of Advanced Agricultural Sciences, Peking University

Multiple Tenure-Track Faculty Positions at the CU Boulder BioFrontiers Institute

Seeking an innovative and collaborative scientist or engineer to build a globally recognized, interdisciplinary research program.

Boulder, Colorado

University of Colorado Boulder BioFrontiers Institute

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine Seeking High-level Talents

Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Tenure Track Faculty Position - Division of Hematology

The Division of Hematology at Washington University in St. Louis invites applications from outstanding candidates with a Ph.D. and/or M.D. degree f...

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washingon University School of Medicine - Division of Hematology

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer at the Dyson School of Design Engineering

About the role: Do you want to change the world for the better, and do you believe this can be done through research and education? If so, grab you...

South Kensington, London (Greater) (GB)

Imperial College London (ICL)

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

Quick links

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

Advising Guide: Building a successful relationship with your advisor

Conducting research meetings with your advisor, holding regular meetings, planning your agenda before the meeting, sample meeting agenda topics, taking notes, keeping a research notebook or journal, if you are co-advised, why have a co-advisor, allen school considerations for co-advising, additional planning if co-advised, joint or separate meetings.

Schedule regular meetings with your advisor (usually once per week) even if you think you have nothing to talk about, you haven’t made much progress, or you are worried that you will be wasting your advisor’s time. Often that is exactly when it is most important to have a meeting. Note that a meeting need not be long or even fill the allocated time slot. Everyone, including your advisor, is happy to suddenly have a few extra minutes if the meeting ends early.

Regular meetings will give you more ideas, connections, and resources to achieve your goals. It also keeps your advisor up-to-date on your progress and helps them keep your project in mind. Often when there isn’t much progress, a meeting is a time for your advisor to help you stay energized and excited about the project since they are likely to take the long view.

Set up a regular meeting time that works for you both every quarter since your schedules will likely change. Offer several possibilities to respect the other person’s needs and preferences. (Some advisors opt to use an on-demand calendar, where you can reserve free meeting slots. In this case, claim a slot every week.)

If your advisor needs to skip a meeting and you still need guidance, follow-up with them by email to discuss the issues or to reschedule the meeting.

Outside regular meetings, you and your advisor should establish norms for asynchronous communication (e.g., email and slack). Sometimes a quick exchange with your advisor between meetings can save you a lot of time. Don’t hesitate to reach out.

Consider preparing a weekly progress report and sending it to your advisor before your meetings. This will help you make the most of your time together. It also forces you to review your work and think about its consequences, in addition to helping you and your advisor track your longer-term progress.

Write down an agenda and send it to your advisor in (sufficient) advance of the meeting; you could also bring two hardcopies to the meeting. Some students use a slide deck to guide the discussion. Prioritize the items on your agenda. Importantly, focus first on items that are most likely to help you make progress between the current and next meeting.

An agenda for a research meeting (depending on the research area and the specific individuals involved) may include any or all of the following items:

Recap of the goals and state of the project. Like you, your advisor is juggling numerous responsibilities and context switching constantly throughout the day. Don’t be upset if your advisor cannot remember what was discussed in your previous meeting. Over time, you’ll learn how to quickly recap events to stay on track.

An update on what you’ve accomplished since the previous meeting and which previous goals have been met. Include, for example, what code you’ve written, new results and ideas, experimental results, etc. Share graphs showing these results, if applicable. Be sure that you’ve already thought through what the results mean, why they make sense, and how they move the project forward. Getting new results up until the last minute does not leave you time to consider whether these results are meaningful or even correct.

Papers you have read or talks you have attended that are relevant to your research and what you learned from them. Teach your advisor something!

Problem-solving strategies. Brainstorm with your advisor about how to solve problems, discussing in detail whatever you are stuck on or don’t understand. Key advisor added value is helping you figure out a way forward when you are stuck. Be as specific as possible when explaining sticking points. Consider writing this part out for yourself ahead of the meeting. Sometimes even just articulating what you are stuck on can help you get past whatever is blocking you. In addition, don’t hesitate to ask for help with low-level details, such as code reviews or debugging help, and your advisor will let you know if they can or are willing to work at this level.

Gaps in your knowledge or advice on what you should be learning in the short and longer term. Your advisor can help you figure out how to fill those gaps by suggesting classes you should take, papers/books you should read, experts you should speak with, etc.

Feedback on progress . Take initiative in asking your advisor for feedback on your research progress. Be receptive and open to hearing constructive feedback, and remember not to take it personally. Try to see such input as a way to help you do the best possible work and achieve your maximum potential. Focus on asking and answering clarifying questions so that you can think through the validity/utility of the feedback more carefully after the meeting.

Longer-term goals. Discuss research questions and directions that you’d like to explore in the future.

At the end of the meeting, if appropriate, briefly communicate what you understand to be the takeaways and action items going forward.

List of goals you want to accomplish before the next meeting, as well as longer term goals. Let your advisor know about any class-related or personal obligations that will impact your productivity in the upcoming week.

It is essential to record what was discussed. Usually you will write brief notes during the meeting. Otherwise, do so immediately after the meeting, while your memory is fresh. Share the summary with your advisor and keep a copy for your notes. This ensures you are on the same page and understand one another. It is particularly useful when writing a paper about your research. It will also spur both your and your advisor’s memory for future work.

It is highly recommended that you keep a research notebook or journal . (This can be a physical notebook, a set of text files, or some other form.) Whenever an idea comes to you, while reading papers, talking with colleagues, or daydreaming, jot it down. It doesn’t have to be fully conceived or considered. Use the journal to record:

Meeting notes

Calculations you have done and lemmas/theorems you have proved

Short- and long-term goals and timelines

Lists of papers you need to read

Ideas for future research

Questions you want to resolve

Topics you need or want to learn

Relevant conference deadlines and submission plans

Co-advisors provide different perspectives, different personalities, and different strengths and weaknesses, giving you the opportunity to take the best from each. They can expand your personal networks in complementary ways. When doing interdisciplinary work, it can be especially useful to have advisors with different kinds of research expertise.

There is also a cost to having co-advisors. It may mean more meetings, or more trouble scheduling meetings. The advisors may each have their own requirements for what you need to achieve before you can graduate. In some cases they may offer contradictory advice. (Example: you present an idea to each advisor. One says, “Great idea. Before you proceed further, you should do some quick experiments to validate it, to avoid wasting time if it turns out to be a dead end..” The other says, “Great idea. Before you proceed further, you should work through a proof to make sure that it is sound, to avoid wasting time if it turns out to be a dead end.” In such a situation, you will want to have a discussion with both of them to figure out how to prioritize the two alternatives.

There are many ways to have a co-advisor, and one (or more!) can be added at any point during your Ph.D. Your co-advisors will be co-chairs of your doctoral committee. They may split your funding or there may be a primary and secondary advisor (with the primary often providing the funding). These are things you should feel free to discuss at the outset with both advisors.

To formalize a co-advisor use the advisor change form .

Many Allen School students are co-advised. As just stated, benefitting the most from having multiple advisors requires some additional planning on your part. While the exact setup of your co-advising relationship will be unique to you and the advisors, there are some common items to consider early on and then revisit periodically.

Know each advisor’s relative strengths, keeping in mind that you might need different kinds of help from them at different points. If one advisor funds you on the main project you’re working on, that may be a different type of advising relationship than you have with a co-advisor who provides expertise in a particular topic.

Ensure that both advisors are aware of what you are working on and what each of their colleague’s contributions to your work will be. This will help with allocating time, resources, and credit.

You and your co-advisors should decide whether to meet together or separately. There can be benefits to both approaches.

Meeting together helps keep the project status in sync but can result in long discussions between the advisors, rather than with you. (Occasionally these discussions are illuminating about life as a faculty member.)

If both advisors are present, you will need to proactively manage the meeting agenda to clarify what you want or need from the meeting.

Meeting separately might duplicate discussions, make it harder to sync up about next steps, or require more bridging communication on your part, but it can help you benefit directly from each advisor's unique expertise and working styles (if you have well chunked-out pieces of feedback that you need from both).

If you and your co-advisors decide on separate meetings, still plan on meeting as a group occasionally (at least once or twice a year). Always copy both advisors on all progress reports, meeting agendas, and meeting notes.

It is still important to follow specific guidelines for conducting effective meetings.

Check in regularly with your co-advisors to assess how co-advising is working and whether their combined perspectives are leading to more effective research.

How to get good advising: information about the grad student - advisor relationship

First Year | Building a Relationship | Rights and Responsibilities | Ongoing Conversations Troubleshooting | FAQ | Growth Mindset

blog @ precision

Mentor magic: how to build a strong relationship with your phd advisor.

Imagine embarking on a challenging journey through a dense, unfamiliar forest. The path is winding, filled with obstacles, and occasionally, the way forward seems completely hidden. Now, imagine you have an experienced guide by your side—someone who knows the terrain, understands the pitfalls, and can point out the best routes to take. This guide is akin to your PhD advisor in the academic world. A PhD advisor plays a crucial role in a student’s academic journey, much like a guide ensuring you reach your destination safely and efficiently.

The relationship with your PhD advisor can significantly impact your academic and professional development. A strong advisor-student relationship fosters a supportive and productive environment where ideas flourish, research progresses smoothly, and academic goals are achieved. Conversely, a weak relationship can lead to misunderstandings, stalled progress, and unnecessary stress.

Consider the process of conducting research. Whether you’re engaging in qualitative methods —delving deep into participant experiences through interviews and focus groups, quantitative methods —analyzing numerical data to find patterns and test hypotheses, or mixed methods —integrating both approaches for a comprehensive understanding, your advisor’s guidance is invaluable. They help refine your research questions, provide insights on methodology, and offer critical feedback to enhance your study’s rigor and relevance.

In this post, we’ll explore the magic behind building a strong relationship with your PhD advisor. We’ll discuss understanding the advisor’s role, finding the right advisor, establishing clear communication, setting mutual expectations, building trust and respect, seeking feedback, navigating challenges, maximizing the advisor-student relationship, and maintaining a long-term connection. By the end, you’ll have a map for fostering a productive and rewarding partnership with your advisor, ensuring your journey through the academic forest is as straight forward and successful as possible.

Understanding the Role of Your PhD Advisor

A PhD advisor is more than just a supervisor; they are a mentor, guide, and sometimes even a critic, all rolled into one. Their responsibilities are multifaceted, encompassing both academic and personal support, guiding research questions, methodologies, and offering critical feedback. They can act as your dissertation mentor and writing assistant . At the core, a PhD advisor’s primary role is to guide you through your research journey, helping you refine your research questions, develop a robust methodology, and ensure your work meets the rigorous standards of your discipline. They offer critical feedback on your proposals, drafts, and final dissertation, ensuring that your work is both original and impactful. 

Beyond the academic realm, advisors play a significant role in shaping your professional development. They introduce you to the broader academic community, helping you network with other scholars and professionals in your field. This can be through conferences, seminars, or collaborative projects. Advisors often provide opportunities for co-authoring papers, which is invaluable for building your academic portfolio. They can also offer career advice, from navigating the job market to preparing for interviews and presentations.

It’s essential to set realistic expectations for this relationship. Understanding that your advisor is there to guide you, not to do the work for you, is crucial. They will provide the tools and feedback necessary for your success, but the drive, initiative, and hard work must come from you. Regular and proactive communication is key. Schedule consistent meetings to discuss your progress, address any challenges, and seek dissertation advice on the next steps. Be prepared for these meetings with specific questions or topics to discuss, demonstrating your commitment and organization.

Recognize that your advisor also has their own commitments and responsibilities. They might be juggling multiple advisors, teaching duties, and their own research projects. Therefore, patience and respect for their time are important. If you encounter difficulties, whether in your research or in the advisor-student relationship, addressing them openly and constructively can prevent minor issues from becoming significant obstacles.

In essence, understanding the role of your PhD advisor and setting realistic expectations are foundational steps in building a strong and productive relationship. Your advisor is your guide to surviving the PhD marathon , helping you navigate the complexities of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method research. By acknowledging their role and aligning your expectations, you can create a partnership that not only supports your academic success but also enhances your professional growth.

Finding the Right Advisor

Selecting the right PhD advisor is a critical decision that can profoundly influence your academic journey. The advisor you choose will be your primary guide, mentor, and supporter, so it’s essential to consider several key qualities to ensure a compatible and productive relationship.

First and foremost, look for an advisor whose research interests align closely with your own. This alignment is crucial because it ensures that your advisor will have the expertise and enthusiasm to guide your project effectively. If your research involves conducting interviews or focus groups for qualitative research , you’ll benefit from an advisor who has a strong background in these areas. Similarly, if your work is quantitative, involving statistical analysis or experimental design, an advisor skilled in these methodologies will be invaluable. For mixed-methods research, find someone who appreciates and understands the integration of both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Another key quality is the advisor’s availability and commitment to mentoring. Some professors, despite their expertise, may be too busy with their own research, teaching, or administrative duties to provide the level of support you need (Brown & Kosovich, 2015). It’s important to find someone who has the time and willingness to engage with your work regularly. Ask current or former students about their experiences and observe how potential advisors interact with their students during seminars or meetings.

Effective communication is another critical quality. You need an advisor who can provide clear, constructive feedback and with whom you feel comfortable discussing your ideas, challenges, and progress. Compatibility in communication styles can significantly impact the efficiency and enjoyment of your research process.

To identify and select a compatible advisor, start by researching faculty members in your department or related fields. Review their published work to gauge their research interests and methodologies. Attend their lectures or seminars to get a sense of their teaching style and personality. Reach out to potential advisors to discuss your research interests and see how receptive they are to your ideas. This initial interaction can provide valuable insights into how supportive and approachable they might be.

Seek recommendations from peers, professors, and other academic consultants. They can provide honest insights into the working styles and strengths of different faculty members. Additionally, consider the advisor’s track record of mentoring successful PhD students. Advisors who have guided many students to completion and publication likely have a solid mentoring approach.

Aligning research interests is paramount. An advisor whose interests overlap significantly with yours will be more invested in your project and more capable of providing relevant and insightful guidance. They will also be better positioned to introduce you to a network of scholars and resources pertinent to your field, further enriching your academic experience.

Establishing Clear Communication

Effective communication is the cornerstone of a successful advisor-student relationship. Regular and open communication fosters mutual understanding, ensures alignment of expectations, and helps to promptly address any issues that may arise during your PhD journey. Establishing clear communication channels early on sets a positive tone for your working relationship and paves the way for a productive collaboration.

The importance of regular and open communication cannot be overstated. Frequent interactions with your advisor help to keep your research on track and helps to save you from a situation of never ending edits . Regular check-ins ensure that both you and your advisor are aware of your progress, any challenges you are facing, and the next steps in your research. This ongoing dialogue helps to prevent misunderstandings and ensures that you are both working towards the same goals.

Setting up initial meetings to discuss expectations and goals is a crucial first step in establishing clear communication. During these initial discussions, discuss research interests, objectives, and timelines. Set expectations regarding communication preferences and feedback. This is similar to the initial setup with dissertation services . Discussing your advisor’s expectations regarding meeting frequency, communication preferences, and feedback turnaround times will help set the groundwork for a smooth working relationship (Sammons & Ruth, 2007). Be open about your own expectations and any concerns you may have, and listen actively to your advisor’s guidance and suggestions.

Effective ways to communicate include a mix of formal and informal methods. Email is a common and convenient way to share updates, ask questions, and send documents for review. However, emails can sometimes lead to misunderstandings due to their lack of tone and immediate feedback. To mitigate this, make your emails clear and concise, and follow up on important points during in-person or virtual meetings.

Scheduled meetings, whether in-person or via video calls, provide a more interactive platform for discussing your research in detail. These meetings allow for real-time feedback, clarification of complex issues, and collaborative problem-solving. Regularly scheduled meetings, such as weekly or bi-weekly check-ins, help maintain momentum and ensure continuous progress. It’s beneficial to prepare an agenda for these meetings to ensure all relevant topics are covered and to make the best use of both your time and your advisor’s.

Progress reports are another effective communication tool. These reports can be monthly or quarterly summaries of what you have accomplished, any challenges encountered, and your plans for the next period. Progress reports provide a structured way to keep your advisor informed and demonstrate your commitment and diligence. They also serve as a valuable record of your research journey, which can be useful for both you and your advisor in tracking your development and planning future work.

In addition to these formal methods, don’t underestimate the value of informal communication. Brief check-ins after seminars, quick questions during office hours, or even casual conversations at academic events can strengthen your relationship with your advisor. These interactions help build rapport and make it easier to address more significant issues when they arise.

Setting Mutual Expectations

Establishing mutual expectations is a fundamental step in building a strong and effective relationship with your PhD advisor. Clear expectations help prevent misunderstandings, foster a collaborative working environment, and ensure that both you and your advisor are on the same page regarding your research journey.

The first step in setting mutual expectations is having an open discussion about what both parties expect from each other. This conversation should cover a wide range of topics, including the frequency and mode of communication, the type of feedback you need, and your advisor’s expectations regarding your work ethic and progress (Phillips & Johnson, 2022). Discussing these elements early on helps to align your goals, or to develop a win-win relationship, and ensures that there are no surprises later in the relationship. It’s important to be honest and upfront about your own expectations and to listen carefully to what your advisor expects from you.

Once you have discussed these expectations, it’s crucial to establish clear guidelines for feedback and deadlines. Agreeing on a timeline for submitting drafts and receiving feedback helps to keep your research on track and ensures that both you and your advisor can manage your time effectively. For example, you might agree to submit a chapter draft by the end of the month and receive feedback within two weeks. This clarity helps to avoid any last-minute rushes and ensures that you have enough time to incorporate your advisor’s suggestions.

Understanding your advisor’s working style and preferences is another key aspect of setting mutual expectations. Every advisor has their own approach to mentoring, and getting to know this can help you adapt your working style to fit theirs. Some advisors may prefer regular, detailed progress reports, while others might favor brief, informal updates. Similarly, some may provide detailed, line-by-line feedback, while others might offer broader, conceptual guidance. By understanding these preferences, you can tailor your interactions to suit your advisor’s style, making the working relationship more efficient and harmonious.

It’s also important to discuss and agree on how to handle potential challenges or conflicts. For instance, agree on a protocol for addressing potential conflicts. This is a strategy often employed by data consultants (Briganti et al., 2020). Having a plan in place for these situations can help to resolve issues quickly and amicably, without disrupting your progress.

Setting mutual expectations also involves understanding and respecting each other’s boundaries and limitations. Your advisor likely has other commitments, such as teaching, research, and administrative duties, so it’s important to be mindful of their time and schedule. Likewise, you should communicate any personal or professional constraints that might impact your research timeline. This mutual respect helps to build a trusting and supportive relationship.

Maintaining a Long-Term Relationship

The relationship you build with your PhD advisor doesn’t end at graduation; in fact, it can be a valuable and enduring professional connection that benefits you throughout your career. Maintaining a long-term relationship with your advisor involves staying in touch, leveraging their network, and showing appreciation for their support.

Keeping in touch after graduation is crucial for sustaining your relationship. Regular updates on your career progress, new projects, and achievements keep your advisor informed and engaged with your professional journey (Felten & Lambert, 2020). This doesn’t mean inundating them with frequent messages, but periodic emails or calls to share significant milestones, seek advice, or simply to catch up can keep the connection strong. Attending conferences or events where your advisor might be present is another excellent way to stay connected. These face-to-face interactions, even if occasional, help maintain a personal touch in your professional relationship.

Building a professional network through your advisor is one of the most valuable aspects of a long-term relationship. Your advisor likely has an extensive network of colleagues, former students, and industry contacts. By staying in touch and engaging with your advisor’s network, you can gain access to a wealth of opportunities, including collaborations, job openings, and industry insights. Don’t hesitate to ask for introductions or referrals when appropriate; most advisors are more than willing to support their former students in building a successful career.

To ensure a lasting and positive relationship, it’s important to show appreciation for your advisor’s support. Simple gestures of gratitude can go a long way. Sending a heartfelt thank-you note or email after a significant accomplishment, acknowledging their role in your success, is a meaningful way to express your appreciation. Publicly recognizing their contributions in your published papers, presentations, or at professional events can also demonstrate your gratitude. Additionally, consider giving back to your academic community in ways that reflect the support you received. For example, participate in mentoring younger students and alumni events. This can reinforce the support you received from dissertation experts .

Another effective way to show appreciation is to keep your advisor informed about how their guidance has impacted your career. Sharing specific examples of how their advice helped you navigate a challenging situation or achieve a goal reinforces the value of their mentorship. This not only shows gratitude but also strengthens the mentor-mentee bond by highlighting the tangible outcomes of their support.

Building a strong relationship with your PhD advisor is akin to cultivating a lifelong partnership that begins with your academic journey and extends well into your professional career. This relationship, like any meaningful connection, requires effort, understanding, and mutual respect. By focusing on key areas such as understanding your advisor’s role, finding the right advisor, establishing clear communication, setting mutual expectations, and maintaining long-term contact, you can create a robust and supportive mentor-mentee relationship.

Imagine your academic journey as a long-distance marathon, with your advisor as your coach. In the early stages, they help you develop a training plan, providing insights and feedback to improve your performance. Throughout the race, they offer encouragement, help you navigate obstacles, and keep you focused on your goals. Even after you cross the finish line, their support continues, guiding you through subsequent races and new challenges. Just as a marathon runner values the continuous support of their coach, you too will find immense value in the sustained guidance and mentorship of your PhD advisor.

For instance, consider the story of a doctor who maintained a strong relationship with her PhD advisor long after graduating. Initially, her advisor guided her through the intricacies of qualitative research, helping her navigate the complexities of her dissertation on community health practices. After graduation, the doctor stayed in touch, periodically updating her advisor on her career progress. When she encountered a challenging project at her new job, she reached out for advice. Her advisor not only provided valuable insights but also introduced her to a colleague with expertise in the field, leading to a successful collaboration and a significant career milestone for the doctor. This enduring relationship, built on mutual respect and continuous engagement, exemplifies the long-term benefits of a strong advisor-student connection.

In conclusion, your PhD advisor is not just a guide for your dissertation but a mentor who can significantly influence your academic and professional trajectory. By investing in this relationship, you ensure a supportive and enriching journey through your PhD and beyond. Embrace the mentor magic, foster a strong connection, and you will find a valuable ally in your academic and professional endeavors.

Briganti, J. S., Ogier, A., & Brown, A. M. (2020). Piloting a community of student data consultants that supports and enhances research data services. International Journal of Digital Curation , 15 (1), 11-11. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6951-8228  

Brown, C. L., & Kosovich, S. M. (2015). The impact of professor reputation and section attributes on student course selection. Research in Higher Education , 56 , 496-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9356-5

Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college . Jhu Press.

Phillips, E., & Johnson, C. (2022). How to Get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors 7e . McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Sammons, M. C., & Ruth, S. (2007). The invisible professor and the future of virtual faculty. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning , 4 (1), 3-13. https://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_07/article01.htm

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Tips to Maintain a Good Relationship With Your PhD Supervisor

The PhD student–supervisor relationship is quite possibly one of the most difficult relationships in academia. Regardless of the nature of the doctoral program, the role of a PhD supervisor usually switches between being your boss as well as mentor in the same workplace. Similarly, depending upon the situation, you may be required to act as a student/mentee as well as an employee at different points in your doctoral journey. These roles can be tricky to navigate as a young PhD student, especially if you haven’t been exposed to the hierarchical challenges of academia so far.

Focusing on learning and acquiring skills while maintaining a cordial professional relationship with your supervisor need not always be mutually exclusive. In fact, the type of PhD supervision you receive during your doctoral journey may directly or indirectly shape a lot of important decisions that you undertake in the future. Therefore, maintaining a good PhD student–supervisor relationship is paramount during your PhD. This article provides some useful tips to ease the process.

3 Tips to help students build a strong PhD supervisor relationship

1. Become familiar with their working style

There is no set way to determine what makes a good PhD supervisor as every supervisor has their own distinct style of working. Some may be comfortable letting students explore and experiment by themselves, preferring only to guide them whenever students need support. Some supervisors, on the other hand, like to be kept informed about the details of the project that their students are working on. Adapting to the working style of your supervisor may make it easier to manage their expectations as well as your expectations of PhD supervision on a daily basis. This will also form the basis of the PhD student-supervisor relationship.

If needed, talk to your colleagues to gain more insight into the work culture of your lab. One great tip to build your relationship with your supervisor if you are a student pursuing your PhD away from your home country is to familiarize yourself with the culture and language of the new country, since cultural nuances often seep into workplace communication and influence working styles, including PhD student-supervisor relationships.

2. Keep the communication lines open

A lot of misunderstandings in the PhD supervisor relationship, especially during the initial stages of the doctoral journey can be avoided by ensuring clear communication with your supervisor. Young PhD students are naturally quite apprehensive about putting across their views for fear of being assessed negatively, but this may in fact pose problems in the long run when it comes to forging a strong supervisor-PhD student relationship. If there are some aspects of the work culture of your lab or the working style of your supervisor that you are not comfortable with, it may be a good idea to discuss this openly. You can also seek advice from your colleagues about the best possible ways to approach your supervisor, and adapt your conversations accordingly.

If the role of your supervisor keeps them busy and unavailable for an extended period, it is advisable to bring this up with them and seek regular appointments for clarifying any pertinent issues related to your PhD project, thus, avoiding any long-term repercussions. Open communication is key to having a healthy PhD student–supervisor relationship as well as to ensuring the success of your PhD project.

3. Discuss your goals and aspirations

One of the key aspects of healthy communication in the PhD student-supervisor relationship is the ability to have a detailed discussion about your goals and aspirations. Even if the goals are as short term as wanting to gain expertise in a new technique or setting up an external collaboration for an ongoing project, it is important to engage in timely discussions about these goals. The PhD supervisor relationship is only going to get better if you discuss your aspirations openly.

Whenever your supervisor is willing to actively switch from the role of a supervisor and mentor you regarding non-PhD related matters, see it as a great opportunity to learn from their rich experience and use their learnings to make conscious choices in your own career path. It will also help your supervisor gain an insight into your thought process and help them make an informed assessment about your abilities. Such discussions help in strengthening the PhD student-supervisor relationship and foster a bond that has the potential to grow beyond your doctoral journey.

PhD is a bumpy ride with unpredictable twists and turns, but maintaining a healthy supervisor-PhD student relationship surely helps in transforming the ride into a memorable one.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

How Does R Discovery’s Interplatform Capability Enhance Research Accessibility 

What is Convenience Sampling: Definition, Method, and Examples 

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

Contributed equally to this work with: Loay Jabre, Catherine Bannon, J. Scott P. McCain, Yana Eglit

* E-mail: [email protected]

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

• Loay Jabre, 
• Catherine Bannon, 
• J. Scott P. McCain, 

Published: September 30, 2021

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330
• Reader Comments

Citation: Jabre L, Bannon C, McCain JSP, Eglit Y (2021) Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor. PLoS Comput Biol 17(9): e1009330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330

Editor: Scott Markel, Dassault Systemes BIOVIA, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2021 Jabre et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

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

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

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

Rule 1: Align research interests

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

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

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

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

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

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

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

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g001

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

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

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

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

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

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

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

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

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

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

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

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

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

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

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

Rule 9: Trust your gut

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g002

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g003

Conclusions

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

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

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 5. Smith D. The big benefits of working in a small lab. University Affairs. 2013. Available from: https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/career-advice-article/the-big-benefits-of-working-in-a-small-lab/

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

10 ingredients for a successful supervisor/PhD student relationship

6 August 2019

A professor shares his recipe for building a thriving relationship with his PhD researchers – and why it’s not like it used to be

Dr. José M. Torralba has supervised 28 PhD theses and 90 diploma theses as Professor of Materials Science Engineering at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Here, he suggests ways to build a healthy professor/PhD student relationship — and with that, a healthy research group.

A good relationship is the basis for a good performance in science and a way to promote collaboration and the success of all the members in a research group. At the core of all the labs relationships is the professor/student relationship. If this works properly, it can be the seed for the whole lab relationship.

Yet, as higher education has transformed over the decades, so have traditional relationships in academia – some more effectively than others.

Dr. José M. Torralba, PhD, in his lab at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, where he is Professor of Materials Science and Engineering.

In most disciplines, the supervisor/PhD student relationship is established through the bonding process that occurs during the development of a doctoral thesis, where the student is supposed to be guided by the professor. This relationship, during a specific and limited period of time, can generate links that endure over the time, far beyond an employment relationship that is established for the fulfillment of the objectives of a project.

Decades ago, this relationship was based on the authority of the master over the disciple. The professor/student relationship was a sort of dictatorship where the student had to follow any small desire or suggestion of the professor. The professor was a superhuman that possessed all the knowledge and wisdom, and the student was obliged do what the professor said without any doubt or discussion.

This does not happen today, at least not in most of the advanced research centers. Previously, the authority of the professor was based on their supposed possession of all the knowledge and the nearly absolute dependence of the student on the decisions of the professor. Now, we live in a society where access to knowledge is almost unlimited, and the professor's preponderance over the student is based fundamentally on experience more than access to knowledge.

Also, whereas the student’s success used to require obedience and unwavering loyalty to the professor, the modern student has no need for such dependence. This has been lost in an open world, in the entire global village. Today, students have a contract and labor rights, so their survival does not depend on the whim or arbitrariness of a professor.

Apart of this, when a professor/student relationship begins, there is a need to combine two wills, each with their circumstances, to achieve a single objective. This objective is usually linked to a research project and usually leads to a doctoral thesis. Years ago, this was usually just a manuscript.

But today, the thesis is not enough; we must add on to it. From this professor-student relationship, other fruits grow, such as articles in journals, conference papers, patents, and collaborations with other research groups, some of them abroad.  PhD students in my research group have gone on to work at research centers in the Netherlands, Italy, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and the United States as well as in other parts of Spain.

Fortunately, there are modern tools and platforms that can connect researchers and help them track the progress and impact of their work.

Tools you can use for research and collaboration

Normally in this relationship, the seed of the idea for a research topic comes from the professor. The professor introduces the idea to the student and provides all the necessary means for growth: laboratories, libraries, consumable material, trips (if necessary). It is the student who takes the shovel to nurture the seed with soil, water it and monitor its growth. The professor must also watch that everything goes well so the tree can grow. If problems arise, such as a plague, hail or drought, the professor must provide solutions and the means to reach them advised or helped by the student, of course, who cares directly for the tree and probably knows it better than the professor. But the main responsibility to find solutions belongs to the professor.

When time has passed and the fruits appear, they will be the fruits of both of them. Both are responsible for the final product, and both will benefit (or experience harm) from what has been achieved.

For this relationship to function well, there must be rules, which will ensure this co-responsibility becomes an eternal and enduring positive relationship over the time. When a student believes that their thesis is good or bad because of the professor, or vice versa, it is because the norms for the professor/student coexistence have not been followed.

These are the ingredients for the recipe for a healthy and fruitful relationship:

1. A relationship between equals.  The professor, from the first day, should establish a personal relationship of mutual respect, equal to equal. The student will respect the professor (who is usually is wiser and older) but starting from the reality that it is a relationship between equals. Mutual respect must be the basis for the relationship.

2. Inspiration and creation of ideas.  The professor should be a source of inspiration and creation of ideas. But also, the student will endeavor to learn the state of art that allows him or her to propose alternative ways in the creative process. The student must generate, from the beginning, ideas that enrich the work.

It is normal for ideas to come from the professor. Usually, when the first contact is established, the professor has a running research line established, often with funding allocated to the project. But the idea must be taken by the student as their own, and the student must strive to expand the possibilities of the work thorough their own input.

3. Means.  The professor must provide the student with all the necessary means to carry out their work, including a decent salary. At the same time, the student will make every effort to make the work evolve to achieve the objectives set by the professor, and to take advantage of everything that has been put in their hands.

In former times, where a research activity often progressed thanks to the goodwill of the participants, who had to overcome what seemed like an obstacle course where even the tools to be used were not provided, is a nonsense today. Any research endeavor should ensure the basic resources in order to be developed with enough guarantees for success. The times where PhD work is done under the principle of generosity have passed. There must be enough funding to allow the research to progress, and the focus of the student should be the development of their creative work.

4. Progress of the work.  The professor must monitor the progress of the student's work at all times. The student must help the professor find solutions to the seemingly unresolvable problems that will surely come up along the way.

The times where the professor does not “give audience” to the student, waiting on their “throne hall” for the “vassal,” are long gone. In today’s research environment, if a professor does not have time to supervise PhD students properly, the supervising activity must be redefined. Also, the student must put all effort and energy in trying to solve the problems by themselves before discussing it with the professor.

5. Cooperation.  The professor will become the first ally (partner, associate) of the student in the performance of the work. And the student must go to the professor whenever there is any problem or contingency related to the work along the way. The basis for the cooperation is communication. It is quite normal that students try not to disturb the professor, even though most of the time, the professor could solve the problem faster than any other person. Both professor and student must consider the work relationship as teamwork.

6. Encouragement.  The professor should always encourage the student (in the best positive attitude), especially in those moments when things do not go as expected.

There are many disasters that can occur during PhD work. I have heard (even by myself!) phases like: “I am going to leave the thesis.” “This is my last day – I can’t stand this!” In these moments, the supervisor must be the first person to encourage the student to keep going, to maintain high spirits and help revive the interest and enthusiasm to continue with the work. A supervisor must be the student’s a coach, not only in the academic sense. When things go wrong, the student often thinks their problems bother the professor; that’s not true in most cases, and the professor is the first and the best advisor for the student.

7. Discrepancies management.  The student will discuss with the professor any possible discrepancy of criteria that may arise in the development of the work. The student will comply with the decisions of the professor, decisions that will be the result of a prior discussion.

When discrepancies appear, the best way to reach an agreement is discussion, discussion and discussion, and then reaching an agreement. Sometimes, discrepancies appear because someone fails: the professor in the guidance or the student in the execution. In those cases, before starting the discussion the first step should be communication, trying to explain what’s happened.

Failure to comply with this rule will generate a great mutual distrust that can end with a mutual hostile attitude that can, in turn, make the project fail.

8. Knowledge transfer.  The student must be aware that having accepted the supervision of the professor, he becomes an essential link in the propagation of the knowledge previously accumulated by the professor. The professor will try to put all their effort in giving international relevance to the work of the student, which is also is the professor's work.

In the today’s society, knowledge transfer is more important than ever, so both professor and student must assume that one of the main objectives in their research work is to promote, as much as possible, the transfer of the generated knowledge to the society. This can be done through scientific papers, patents, spin-offs – and scientific divulgation today is a must. This task, easier now thanks to social networks. Even when using social media for self-interest purposes, scientists that have high impact in social networks are cited more in academic metrics, according to a  2016 study opens in new tab/window  in PLOS One.

In this effort to disseminate the knowledge, the student plays an important role as the main link between the professor and future students.

9. Professional projection.  The professor should be aware that no matter how much he or she gives to the student, that student is putting into the hands of the professor several years of their life, in their moment of more physical and intellectual splendor. The professor will seek the greatest professional projection he or she can provide to the student.

The better the future of the student, the better the future of both of them. One well promoted student is the best way for the professor to assure future scientific networks, future collaboration and future projects. Today’s students must be future partners. To promote your students is actually a way to promote yourself.

10. Relationship forever.  The professor, from the moment he or she accepts the student, must be their mentor forever. And the student must expect and ask for advice and help from the professor for the development of their later professional career.

If both are intelligent people (which is supposed), they will try to maintain, forever, this mentor/mentored relationship. With time, the student could even play the mentor role with their former professor. Both of them will grow personally and professionally, and this will allow them to help each other. If the relationship is an equal relationship from the beginning, with the passing of the years, it will be much even more egalitarian, if it is possible. This kind of relationship could promote connections as strong father/mother and son or daughter. And this could be one of the best ways to enrich the personal lives of both.

If professor and student both comply with these simple rules, it will be difficult for them not to complete the work successfully and build a relationship that endures well beyond the duration of that first project.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Assistant Prof.  Sophia Tsipas opens in new tab/window  for her help in revising this text. She wasn´t my PhD student, but she could have been.

Prof. Torralba’s research group uses a variety of platforms to find out about the latest related research, manage their research and connect with researchers around the world. The most used are Elsevier’s  ScienceDirect  and  Scopus  as well as  Web of Science opens in new tab/window  and  Google Scholar opens in new tab/window . To manage citations, they use Elsevier’s  Mendeley  in addition to  EndNote opens in new tab/window  and  Zotero opens in new tab/window .

They also track the impact of their research in non-traditional ways. One tool to do that is Elsevier’s  Plum Analytics opens in new tab/window , which provides insights into how people are interacting with research online – for example, on social media and in the news. Elsevier has integrated Plum Analytics into ScienceDirect, Scopus and other research platforms.

• Translation

How to develop an excellent PhD Supervisor relationship

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 24 April, 2020
• Researcher Career Development

How to develop an excellent PhD Supervisor relationship 

The working relationship that a PhD student has with their supervisor can be the most important factor for determining the success and enjoyment of their doctoral journey. Unfortunately, however, this is an aspect of PhD life that students are seldom alerted to before beginning their research.

When searching and applying for PhDs, people often look for supervisors who are well known in their field or who have conducted renowned, key research in the subject area. However, although this can lend prestige to your own PhD, it is very important to realise that if their working style strongly conflicts with yours or if they do not offer adequate support to their PhD students, then their academic accolades will do little to help you in your own research.

This article outlines some important things to consider, both when you’re selecting your supervisor and PhD programme, and when you’re doing your doctoral research.  

Finding the right PhD supervisor

If you’re just starting to apply for PhDs and thinking about where you would like to undertake your research, pay attention to who will be working with you as your supervisor and/or principal investigator. Spend some time clarifying how you work best, what you hope to get out of your PhD, and how someone can best support you to do this. Bear these criteria in mind as you set out to select a supervisor – how and whether they can support your research will ultimately be more important to your research than impressive credentials.  

This will be the person whom you should have the most contact with throughout your PhD. They will be the one to help you develop your thesis, and give you guidance and feedback to progress successfully in your research. As such, it is crucial that you select someone you will be able to work with well.

When you have an idea of someone you would like to work with, email them personally before you begin your application. Introduce yourself, tell them about your academic goals and enquire if they are currently taking on any supervisees. Try to start a conversation with them and begin some preliminary discussions about the research you intend to do.  

If they are open to discussing further details of doing a PhD with them and in their department/institution, ask them how they usually work with their students, outline any concerns you have and enquire about the support that you can expect to receive as a doctoral candidate there.  

By this stage, you should have some idea of how responsive and supportive they are, and whether or not they would be interested in supervising you (and whether you would like to work with them). Some may even agree to talk to you via phone or video chat, or connect you to some of their current students so you can find out more about working with the department.

Selecting the right supervisor and establishing some contact before you begin your application can be a lengthy progress so make sure you plan well ahead. It may feel time consuming at first, but remember that a PhD can take three to seven years to complete (depending on where you’re studying and whether you are studying full- or part-time). This is a long time to be working closely with someone so investing time early on to find the right fit for you will pay off in the long run.  

Making the most of your PhD supervisor relationship

When you start your PhD, you still need to figure out the best ways of communicating and working with your supervisor. This working relationship will be unlike any other you’ve had: a supervisor is not like a teacher who will give you assignments or mark your work; neither are they like a work boss to whom you are accountable. They are there to guide and support the development of your thesis, not someone you report to as you would in a school or workplace.

For many doctoral students, the PhD is an independent project (unless you are working as a part of a wider PhD research team under the management of a PI; your work life and responsibilities may then more closely resemble a job). As such, you need to determine what kind of guidance you need, what working structure would help you progress effectively, and what type of feedback would be most helpful for you. Discuss these issues early on in your PhD with your supervisor so that expectations are clear on both sides.  

Students who are at the beginning of their PhD and need more guidance may meet their supervisors more regularly (e.g. once a month) and prepare some kind of work in advance to be discussed during the meeting (e.g. an essay or literature review). As you progress, some students may like more frequent communication, for instance on a weekly basis; while others may prefer working independently and check in only as necessary.  

Whatever the frequency and mode of contact you decide on, be sure that this is clear to both yourself and your supervisor. Remember too, that academics often juggle multiple responsibilities and may be supervising several researchers at the same time. The supervisor is not there to ‘look after’ you and you need to be responsible for following up on meetings or sending reminders to them if needed.

Finally, know that a good supervisor will often also offer you pastoral support for your wellbeing. The PhD has its own unique challenges and you may find yourself having to deal with more than just the academic demands of the research. Try to find out from your supervisor early on in your PhD what kind of support is available to you; either from them, the department or the university.

Be upfront and honest with them about aspects of your personal life that may affect your work, such as any family or mental health issues. A good supervisor should support you, find the most effective ways for you to work alongside these issues and direct you to further support if required.

It may take a while to settle into a comfortable working arrangement with your supervisor, but rest assured that once expectations are clearly set and managed, this relationship can be one of the most rewarding aspects of your PhD. You’ll be challenged, have the opportunity to share insights with an experienced academic and be led to make your own excellent research discoveries.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Understanding the Dynamics of the PhD-Advisor Relationship

The journey towards earning a PhD is both academically challenging and personally enriching. Along this journey, one of the most crucial relationships a student develops is with their PhD advisor. This article aims to shed light on the dynamics of the PhD-advisor relationship, offering key insights for students.

An advisor plays an integral role in shaping the academic trajectory of a PhD student. But, what exactly is the role of PhD advisors ? To help you understand, we provide insider information that elucidates the advisor’s role and the expectations placed on both the student and the advisor.

A common question PhD candidates might have is, “How many PhD students can a professor take?” This depends on various factors, including the professor’s capacity and the institution’s regulations. Get detailed insights on how many PhD students a professor can take , and understand how this influences the supervision quality.

The relationship between a PhD student and a professor extends beyond just formal guidance. With time, it evolves, and there’s a lot to learn from this dynamic. Get a first-hand account from a PhD student-turned-professor , sharing experiences and perspectives on the journey from being a student to becoming an academic guide.

The PhD-advisor relationship is a pivotal aspect of your academic journey. By understanding its dynamics and intricacies, you can foster a more productive, beneficial relationship that contributes positively to your research experience and academic growth.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

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

You're a domestic student if you are:

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

You're an international student if you are:

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

What makes a good PhD supervisor?

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

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

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

In this article, they'll cover:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The role of a PhD supervisor

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

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

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

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

Professor Reeves singles out 3 key roles:

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

Choosing a PhD supervisor

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

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

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

Professor Reeves acknowledges the importance of this step too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualities of a good PhD supervisor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips for the first meeting with a PhD supervisor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PhD supervisor relationship: keeping it positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giving and receiving PhD supervisor feedback

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

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

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

According to Professor Reeves, feedback should be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making it mutually beneficial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more about studying a PhD at UQ

Share this Facebook X LinkedIn Email

Related stories

How to get a PhD

4-minute read

What makes a good PhD student?

3-minute read

Why do a PhD at UQ?

7-minute read

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

8-minute read

Before you go, check this out!

We have lots more on the site to show you. You've only seen one page. Check out this post which is one of the most popular of all time.

Tips For Meeting With A PhD Advisor / Graduate Supervisor That Actually Work

Having meetings with your graduate advisor is often scary. Thankfully, for me, I had some wonderful advisors that tried to make me feel at ease in their office. Don’t get me wrong, my own advisors were tough – but that is a good thing because it means they cared about me what and what happened to my success. That did not prevent me from feeling nervous every time that I would meet with them. I now realize that feeling nervous when you are about to meet your supervisors is also a positive thing, but this meant I was taking their advice seriously. If you are in grad school you need to read this article about the day and the life of a PhD. I am sure you will get it. 😉

I also think it is important to work on your graduate student – advisor relationship, and to try to make the relationship as positive as possible. Why? The more you invest in the relationship, the greater returns you will get from the relationship. It is like any long-term relationship, you get what you put into it. From a practical sense, you are going to need your advisor to ‘back’ you in the future through letters of recommendation, or other roles. Even more practical, having a good working relationship with your advisor is just a lot more fun. Given that some graduate student – advisor relationships are not so fun (or even problematic), I thought it is important to share this information to you.

What I have learnt by completing my own PhD about meeting with graduate supervisors? I have a few tips that I think helped me, and will hopefully help you deal with your own advisor relationships. These are a few tips that I learnt over the years, and the tips are useful for people that are meeting with their graduate supervisors, whether if you are doing a PhD or a Masters degree. Perhaps, these will be important for your first meeting with graduate advisor, but I think these points are most important if you take this as a long-term relationship.  If you are just thinking about going to graduate school, I have a recent post based on my experiences on whether a PhD or dual Masters gets you a job.

To summarize, tips to have amazing graduate student – advisor meetings are:

• Always go your adviser’s office with some work done.

Do not disappear.

• When stuck, go talk to your supervisor.
• Try to smile during meetings.
• You can talk about life problems.
• Always respect an adviser’s time.
• Remember that graduate relationships are long-term.
• Be explicit.
• Focus on graduate student development.
• Supervisors should manage their level of guidance.
• Advisers should set standards.
• In general, be decent human beings.

Would you rather watch the YouTube video about some of these tips for graduate meetings? Check out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XuS8x2EIs Video can’t be loaded because JavaScript is disabled: 7 Tips For Meeting With A PhD Advisor / Graduate Supervisor ( PhD Tips On How To Get A PhD ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XuS8x2EIs)

What Is The Difference Between PhD / Graduate Advisor / Graduate Adviser / Graduate Supervisor?

I am going to use the terminology advisor and supervisor interchangeably as I am not quite sure when one is more appropriate than the other.  Some posts on Quora make the distinction based on role , but in my experience, this is minutia that I have never heard anyone get their “knickers in a knot” about it. Of course, there is always a first.

Apparently, you can also use adviser or advisor as well . Oh boy! How bananas is that? However, I believe it has to do with doing your graduate school in British systems than I heard more people use the term supervisor, and doing your graduate work in American systems and than you would hear people use the term “advisor” more. Doing my PhD in Canada, you get a smattering of both terminology, and so I am always a bit confused with some terms (ie. color vs. colour, cheque vs. check, neighbor vs neighbour). Like many things in academia, I think it is entirely cultural and changes from institution to institution.

What Happens In Graduate Student – Adviser Meetings?

The biggest thing that happens during these graduate student meetings is to sort out ideas on how to write a research paper. There is also a lot of debate about how to plan out the idea, and whether the idea is important. A portion of the meeting will also be spent talking about the graduate student’s career and their goals. A smaller portion will be focused on how to plan for the future, and increase their attractiveness in the marketplace.

You should check out this cool guide on writing research papers for graduate students that I put together. The guide took me several weeks to do.

What Are Tips To Meet With Graduate Advisors?

Always go to their office with a least some work completed..

Some weeks you have good weeks where you write so much your hands are reading to fall off and some weeks you have bad weeks where you hardly complete anything. Your job is to have at least 1 sentence completed from the last PhD meeting. If you have only a few sentences written from the past meetings, you should clearly point out why you have only a few sentences written. One thing that I did learn is that if you are having a bad week, you should instantly go talk to your supervisor. A good supervisor will help you navigate why you are having a bad week. They are there to help you either deal with graduate life or to work through a tough problem. It truly helps to talk to them. Generally, when I get stuck, and I talked to my advisors, I was much more productive than when I did not talk to them. The other advantage with doing a bit of work every time you meet with your advisors is that it will make sure that you will complete your degree. A little work is better than no work.

Check in with your PhD advisors on a regular (every week or every other week) basis. Your advisors want to make sure that you are not getting into a funk, and that you are making progress on your PhD. PhD students have a tendency to disappear, and this is a sign of issues that need to be discussed. I think most often ‘disappearing’ is a symptoms of either PhD supervisor problems or that you are having ongoing issues with your PhD. Both need to be vetted as soon as possible.

Now, PhD advisors vary in how much they care about your success, but most are going to care a lot and make sure that you are not getting side-tracked by other things in your life. Every person who has done a PhD knows that it can easily get sidetracked on other life projects. You have to dedicate your time to the degree to get it done, and checking in with your supervisors will make sure that things get done.

Actually, I think it is easy for academics to disappear, and I think it is partially because of the distance between action and outcomes. I wrote a blog post about the r3ciprocity.com software, and why I am trying to create an academic writing group to help PhD students with this problem.

When you are stuck on a problem, go talk to your PhD advisors.

This is so me! 🙂 I was not the disappearing kinda person, but I was the stuck-in-rut kinda person. I would toil at one problem too long, and forget that I can ask people for help. Some of the things I would focus on are programming problems, getting stuck on operational definitions, or writing too much without getting feedback ( You really should read this blog post about how to get feedback on your writing in graduate school ). I am getting better at asking for feedback, checking in to get help, and knowing when I am getting stuck, but you really need to check in with a senior researcher who can identify dead-ends. This is your supervisor’s job! Make sure that you leverage the experience they possess by having a conversation about your problem with them. Better yet, you will actually have a lot more fun when you are open and honest with your advisor.

My supervisors would always give me a list to tackle over the next week (ie. do step 1, 2, 3). I loved these lists! They made my life so easy and manageable. If your advisor does not currently provide lists of what to tackle, you should ask for them until you get used to the ebb-and-flow of research.

You can talk to PhD advisors about occasional life problems.

Completing your PhD is a lot about life, and you have to deal with life issues openly. Here, you have to be careful not to disclose too many life problems or you will sound like a slobbery mess (aren’t we all as humans). However, talking about issues that you are dealing with at home is actually a very healthy thing to help our your PhD. Believe it or not, but your supervisors likely already had similar life experiences. Many of the experiences that you have are not new to academics. They are new to you, yes. The fact that these problems might not apply to a lot of other careers is precisely why should have a conversation with your advisors. Who else are you going to talk to? I actually found that my mentors and advisors have all been very wonderful with helping sort things out with my life. (By the way, thank you if you are one of them and you are reading this post).

Think in terms of status-position and time with your graduate supervisors.

This took me a long-time to understand, but you ought to think about status-positions of people in academia. My supervisors were never really concerned about status-positions, but some people are. However, the key is not whether someone does occur about status, but it is important to give someone who is of higher status, more respect. What do I mean by status? Here, I am talking about status-position in terms of deferment of people onto someone else depending on their social standing. You can usually observe status quite easily. For example, in a doctor’s office, a patient that waits longer for a specialist because the specialist has significant status relative to the patient.

However, in academia, it is difficult to observe status. The only way you observe status is by small cues that you observe over time. Because of this difficulty in observing status-position, I would highly recommend giving all people respect in academia, and giving extra status to people depending on their academic rank.

How do you give people extra respect? Generally, I always try to arrange my schedule to meet other people’s schedule. I also try to do most of heavy lifting on papers. I will try to also take notes during meetings, and generally just be the person to piece things together. I try to address people more formally until I get to know them, and even then, I might ask how they want to be addressed.

It is important to give this respect as much as possible, not because other people care, but because people that are of higher status-position generally have a lot more commitments and are busier. They simply just will not have any flexibility in their schedule, whereas, PhD students generally have more flexibility. You simply will not be able to meet with anyone else you try to be flexible and show others extra respect.

Graduate / PhD advisors are people too.

This is based no my own experience as being a PhD advisor. Advisors have up days, and down days. For example, you might get a paper published, and all is well. More often than not, you will get a paper rejected, or you are up all night with young kids. If you are a graduate student, you meet your PhD advisor, and you realize that they are not at the top of their game that day, just cut them some slack.

Personally, I feel bad for those off days, but I try to make up for these off days for as many positive, good days as I can. This obviously fluctuates, but just know that your PhD supervisors are trying to do their best to make your PhD experience a good experience.

Try to smile during your graduate meeting.

Many graduate meetings are tough. They ought to be because you are learning about something new, and there often corrections and changes with your work. This learning process is tough because you will realize that 2-3 weeks of work was going in the wrong direction. (Personally, I am getting more and more used to this process as I get more and more paper rejections). I don’t know of anyone that enjoys this process of getting your work critiqued.

Thus, it is important to smile and have fun during these tough meetings. Why? Smiling and trying to have fun helps to emotionally deal with this negative feedback. I can’t stress the importance of making sure you have positive affect before, during, and at the end of each meeting. If a meeting was fun, than you feel like you want to get back to work right away. Graduate meetings that are less fun generally take a bit longer to recover from, and make it difficult to get back to work.

Graduate Student – Graduate Supervisor relationships are surprising long-term.

Most graduate advisor – student relationships are quite long-term, so keep that in mind when you start working on a project together. I continue to talk and work with my advisors well after both my Masters and PhD were complete. My advise is for you to take establishing a relationship with a potential advisor seriously. You will continue to work with this person a lot longer than you ever thought you would. I would suggest that you take your time with establishing this relationship, and for you to ask others for advice on both what your role will be in the relationship and what expectations will be in that relationship. You should also seek out advice on the relationship from a trusted advisor, perhaps a more senior PhD / graduate student who could help you but does not have a vested interest.

Everything in academia takes a long time. You should check out this post where I go into detail about why and how long it actually takes to get your doctorate in business.

Be explicit. The creation of knowledge is filled with ambiguity.

I am always surprised on how ambiguous doing research is. Ask me any day if I know what the ‘right’ answer is to a problem, and I will never be able to tell you. Working with someone else, you will always run into moments of ambiguity, so you should be explicit as much as you can, short of writing up contracts. You should be asking for clarification in what the advisor expects you to do, and what your role is. It is important to do this fairly often because often no one knows for sure who’s knowledge is who’s when you are making ideas. If you are uncertain about what you should do, or if the advice you are getting is good, you should talk to your fellow PhD / graduate students about what their opinion is on the situation. If things get real ‘hairy,’ you should go chat senior professors to get their advice. I actually find most people are really helpful if you give them a chance.

Much of this advice is from the perspective of the graduate student, so what about advice for the supervisor?

What do you need to do to be a good graduate student supervisor during these meetings?

From my perspective, being a good PhD supervisor is difficult. Your advising style also effects how your meetings go. You probably should get a license to be a graduate student supervisor. I wonder what the test would look like? 🙂

What does it take to be a good supervisor? It is a lot like being a good manager, and the characteristics that help you to be a good manager is likely going to help you be a good grad student supervisor. You should check out this video of me talking about these issues on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/CaGnFynzh40 Video can’t be loaded because JavaScript is disabled: How To Be A Good PhD Supervisor / PhD Advisor? ( How To Treat Doctoral Students To Publish) (https://youtu.be/CaGnFynzh40)

Graduate meetings should focus on grad student development.

What you should try to do is nurture your graduate students, and try to focus on a growth mindset with the graduate student. For example, you should look for ways to help your graduate student grow as a scholar, such has learning the craft of thinking of a research question, or responding to reviewer comments. I know that this might seem counter-intuitive because from the advisor’s view, they are trying to maximize the productivity for their lab / group, and focusing on graduate student growth is rather wasteful. This is something that I teach in the classroom (from a business perspective), and a lot of people do not get the idea immediately.

However, the way that you get your students to perform is by helping them, and removing any barriers. This will eventually grow your academic productivity because the better your grad students perform, the more papers you will eventually produce. From a probabilistic point of view, I say ‘eventually’ because it will take longer, and not every graduate student will become a high-performing scholar.

In my googling for this following video, I found some interesting results that surprised me about graduate advisor relationships:

https://youtu.be/D0mDi87WftA Video can’t be loaded because JavaScript is disabled: Building Graduate Student – Advisor Relationships (https://youtu.be/D0mDi87WftA)

Advisors should think about adequate managed guidance.

Early on in a graduate education, you are likely to provide more supervision and guidance. You might have detailed rubrics and guides to help graduate students. However, as the graduate student grows as a scholar, you should think about ways for the graduate student to make their own mistakes, even when you do not want them too. I have learnt that a large part of being a PhD supervisor is letting go, and letting people make their own mistakes. This is tough, but like being a parent, you have to make measured judgments on how much you should teach and how much you should let the person learn. As a student, you learn more readily when it is your own mistake – trust me, I made many mistakes.

The job of the graduate advisor during meetings than is not to always do everything for the PhD student. Rather, it is to decide how much guidance you should give. Luckily, my advisors were great, and they made this active choice routinely. They forced me to learn a lot on my own, but then were always there to help when I was stuck.

Supervisors should set a high but obtainable standard.

Again, deciding the standard you want from the graduate student is a judgment call, and an active decision. You should have a negotiation or a conversation with your student to decide what and where they want to go to. If they want to go to a top university, then the bar has to be set high.

During each meeting, doctorate supervisors should remind their students of the standards they set. I found this extremely useful with my own education because it reminded me of why I was doing so much work. It set the tone and quality of the conversation.

Be supportive and a decent human being.

For both the perspective of the graduate student and the advisor, you need to be supportive. Each meeting is not going to go perfectly, and their will be mistakes made. However, graduate meetings are a negotiated process to push attendees to think in different ways. Thinking in different ways is challenging, and emotional, but the focus should be on tearing down and rebuilding ‘the idea’ until everyone is satisfied with the outcome. You are only leveraging each others’ abilities, so that each other will prosper from the work.

Are you thinking about getting your PhD? You should really read this post where I go into detail about what not to ask a PhD.

David Maslach

Recent Posts

Gamify Your PhD: 13 Simple Tactics to Make Research Fun and Exciting

The Power of Gamification in Research Pursuing a PhD or conducting research can often feel like a marathon with no clear finish line. The process is long, tedious, and often isolating. However,...

Being a Good Scientist: The Power of Telling the Whole Truth

The Illusion of Perfection in Academia In academia, there's an overwhelming pressure to present ourselves as "perfect." We often only show the successful side of our work—published papers,...

Sai Kanth Dacha

Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Columbia University

• New York City
• Google Scholar

What to Look for in a Potential PhD Advisor

12 minute read

Published: July 17, 2020

“Is he ghosting me?”

“Is she mad at me? Did I say something wrong?”

“Am I good enough? Does s/he even recognize and appreciate what I’m doing?”

Although these sound like the thoughts of someone worried if their partner/spouse is mad at them, these are also the kinds of thoughts that PhD students riddled with Impostor Syndrome often have about their advisors/PIs.

This apparent similarity might seem strange at first sight, but there is often a deeper reality to it: a PhD advisor, and by extension the relationship that a student has with their advisor, has enormous influence over the graduate school experience of the student. Just as a romantic relationship requires effort, communication, honesty and integrity, so does the relationship with one’s PhD advisor.

The struggle is real

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but doing a PhD is quite challenging, especially these days. Grad school application processes are notoriously expensive. Acceptance rates tend to average around 5-10% for STEM fields in the US , and can be low as 2–5% for some programs. International students have the added complication of getting a visa: in 2018, rejection rate for non-immigrant F-1 visa was around 35% . Once they’re in, graduate students world over are often not compensated well enough. In the face of ever-increasing cost of living, this leads to financial stress . Anxiety, stress, impostor syndrome, loneliness, concerns about the future, funding issues are only some of the all-too-familiar challenges that PhD students have to face on a daily basis; all while trying to do something completely new and original that no one in the world has ever done before! It is perhaps no wonder that PhD dropout rates in the US are as high as 50% .

Program structures and academic supervision also have a big role to play. Specifically, the relationship that you have with your advisor can greatly influence your PhD experience. The stories that I’ve listened to from my friends and colleagues over the past few years have made me realize exactly how bad things can get. Together with my own advisor struggles, these stories have given me a better perspective now on what it is that one should look for in a potential PhD advisor. This article is an attempt to give words to my thoughts on this subject — while my grad school experiences are still fresh in memory — in hopes that it will be useful to a prospective PhD student that is looking to find a thesis advisor.

The “Obvious”

1.1) research areas, type of work:.

Assuming acceptance into a PhD program, the first “obvious” thing to look for in a potential advisor is their research interests. Often times, incoming PhD students already have a few research groups in mind before they join the program. This is good practice, but is far from sufficient.

Perhaps the best advice that I’ve received on this topic is from my current advisor, when I first met him before joining his group: look for what it is that you would do on a day-to-day basis and see if you find that exciting, rather than make a choice purely based on research topics. Are you an experimentalist and enjoy hands-on work? If so, would you want to do system-level work or are you more interested in device fabrication? Or are you more inclined to do computational or theoretical work? Asking these questions in addition to what area you want to work in can greatly help in deciding which research group to join.

1.2) Funding:

Funding for universities and scientific research is awfully lacking in many countries, and this is often reflected in the number of active researchers per million population. My own home country India, for instance, has only about 150 researchers per million . Availability of grant funds can vary from one field to another, but generally speaking, there isn’t enough to go around. I have known far too many of my own peers who have had to either TA (in addition to doing research) for multiple years on end, or switch groups because funds ran out. As a result, it is usually helpful to check with a potential advisor if they are willing to fund you for the entire duration of your PhD.

The Less Obvious (And underrated)

2.1) the human being:.

Professors, especially the more popular ones, are some times made out to be larger-than-life figures who can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is that they are human beings, and have personalities and flaws just like everybody else. This might not matter to most people that interact with them, but it does to their PhD students.

A professor that I once worked with drew pleasure from needlessly ridiculing some of his students in front of other people. Another professor I knew would yell at his students as though they were his servants. The advisor of one of my friends is infamous for making his students spend many days on a report or a proposal, only to organize an 8 hour meeting soon after to rephrase everything the way he likes it. Another friend of mine has an advisor that has consistently given preferential treatment to one specific student in the group that she seemingly liked better. I could go on, but you get the point. In all of these cases, the personality of the advisor only affected their student(s), and no one else.

This is not to say that all advisors are bad people; in fact, in my experience, many are good people. But the point is, whether an advisor is a decent human being or not is often overlooked by many before they decide to work for him/her. Does s/he seem like a reasonable individual? Will they let you stay home if you fall sick, or will they expect you to come in no matter what? Do they seem like someone that would care for your mental health and your progress? These questions are important ones that both current and new graduate students must start asking.

As with toxic personal relationships, toxic professional relationships with PhD advisors are bad for students’ mental health. Suicide rates are high enough among PhD students as it is, and the last thing that you’d want as a first-year PhD student is to end up in an advisor situation that could make you regret your choice of doing a PhD. It is therefore a good idea to do your due diligence.

Some of this is hard to assess before joining a group, of course. But talking to current group members and asking the right questions can give you a good sense of things. This, of course, is still not a sufficient enough or a clear-cut enough solution, but it’s a good start. And if you somehow do hear something about what kind of a person s/he is, you would know to not neglect that information.

2.2) The Researcher:

Some researchers prioritize publishing as many papers as possible over all else, and go after quantity over quality. In my field, I have seen competitor groups that try to publish a new paper for every slightly-different result that they get in the lab. More often than not, this has made me desperate to get my work out as quickly as possible (in other words, prematurely). About a year ago, I insisted to my advisor that we submit some experimental observations that I made in the lab to a popular conference in my field. He said no. I persisted, and he still said no. He was not convinced that the data that I had collected was good enough to be published anywhere, despite my confidence in it.

The publication-starved graduate student in me was disappointed and a little heart-broken, but I later realized that he had taught me an important lesson about scientific integrity. (The data that I was so confident about later turned out to be not so reliable after all!) In my view, the kind of researcher that your advisor is will greatly shape what kind of researcher you will go on to be.

2.3) Willingness to Invest in You:

Time : There is some times a misconception among the general public that professorship can be a laid-back job, but most professors that I’ve interacted with are incredibly busy people. In addition to managing multiple research projects, students and postdocs, they are often shooting for new grants, teaching courses, are on various committees and also taking care of their kids and family. While part of their unavailability is therefore more than understandable, some advisors don’t end up making enough time for their students at all. Whether or not you actually get advice from your advisor on a regular basis is key to your growth as a researcher.

Resources: Would a potential advisor invest in your learning and training, or would they rather have you do only what matters for churning out papers? The whole point of a PhD is for you to learn about a subject in as much depth and breadth (in that order) as possible. It is therefore crucial that your advisor gives you the space and opportunities to learn and grow. This could mean anything from providing access to learning material to letting you attend summer schools and academic conferences.

Both of these are important aspects for a good learning experience, and it is a good idea to discuss them with current students of the advisor before making a decision.

2.4) Expectations and Communication:

New professors are often under pressure to publish at a faster pace to be able to keep their jobs. This usually means greater pressure on his/her graduate students to work harder. Older/tenured professors are a bit more “relaxed” in this regard. Neither is necessarily better than the other for a graduate student, but the potential workload and pressure is something to consider. Make sure you know what is expected of you before making the commitment, especially if you have other responsibilities (other jobs, kid(s) to take care of etc.).

Part of doing so is to be able to communicate with your advisor freely. For a long time, a friend of mine has had issues communicating her concerns with her advisor about sexist micro-aggressions directed at her by certain members of the group. The advisor was a woman too, which would ideally have meant that my friend should have felt safe to voice her concerns. But she didn’t. The reason there was simple: the advisor was far too detached from the individuals that made up the group, and communication between her and her students (especially my friend) was non-existent.

The moral of the story is that being able to communicate with your advisor freely about anything and everything is important, to say the least. To those that aren’t going through the PhD experience themselves, this might seem like asking for too much, but as any grad student that has suffered from issues such as this would tell you, communication matters.

Also “Obvious” (But overrated)

3.1) “connections”/”popularity”/h-index:.

It could be tempting to readily join any “popular”/highly-published/well-connected professor’s group if they will have you, but this could prove counterproductive if you have not paid close enough attention to the more fundamental aspects that I’ve mentioned above. The professor that I mentioned before — the one that likes to ridicule his students needlessly in front of others — is extremely well-known in a worldwide scientific collaboration. He is one of the most brilliant people that I have ever met. But I would not want to do my PhD with him.

3.2) University Affiliation:

This is a popular one too. Wouldn’t it be “cooler” to introduce yourself as a PhD student at Harvard or Cornell rather than one at Florida State? It probably would, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better. It is true that Harvard or Cornell might offer you a better overall student experience than some lesser-known universities (not that Florida State isn’t well-known), but there are so many more important things for a PhD. In addition to what I’ve already mentioned above, research environment in the department, access to research facilities and potential collaborators are much more crucial for a well-rounded research experience — irrespective of whether that is at an Ivy League school or some other. These factors are not relevant for undergraduate studies, but for graduate research, they most certainly are.

It is easy (and tempting) to fall into the illusion that h-indices and rankings matter a lot, but more often than not, that illusion breaks as quickly as it comes once the PhD grind begins. Working with a well-connected advisor at an Ivy League school surely has its benefits, but only if you are able to get the support that you need from them to be able to get through grad school in one piece.

The Bottomline

If there is anything that you take away from this article, I hope it is that there is more than what meets the eye when it comes to choosing a PhD advisor. Beyond what the numbers will tell you, the human being that your future advisor is is something that matters. Deciding to do a PhD is a huge commitment. Perhaps today more than ever, graduate students all over the world are facing increasing difficulties with financial compensation, stress, work-life balance and mental health. Having a supportive advisor by your side can greatly help make these 5–6 (hopefully not more) years a better experience.

Checking all of these boxes might not be possible for many. An advisor situation without any issues whatsoever might be even more unlikely. I certainly have had my own challenges and struggles in this regard. I’ve realized that some level of friction and some compromise is almost inevitable, and that that is not necessarily a result of you or your advisor not doing enough, but rather a reflection of the difficulty and complexity of undertaking scientific research. But by asking the right questions before (or even after) making the commitment, and by demanding what is only fair, we not only help our individual selves, but we also help build an environment where the needs of graduate students are better heard. And that, in my view, ultimately only strengthens academia and the scientific community at large.

I am incredibly grateful for the extremely considerate human being and the brilliant researcher that my advisor is — in that order. My hope is that you will be too, for your future advisor.

Needless to say, this article is neither “expert advice” nor “peer-reviewed”. But it was written with the hope that at least some of it will be useful. All this is is the inner thoughts of a 4th year PhD student that has hit multiple roadblocks on his research and is waiting for his advisor to respond to some of his emails.

This story was originally published by the author on Medium .

You May Also Enjoy

Navigating the academic postdoc job market.

7 minute read

Published: July 02, 2023

Thoughts and advice on finding your way through the ever-confusing postdoc job market.

An Informal Guide for Ph.D. Interning During the Semester via the F-1 CPT

8 minute read

Published: January 11, 2022

A few months ago, I had faced the task of extending my summer employment at Nokia Bell Labs into the Fall semester. Little did I know that the process of getting work authorization for the semester and ensuring compliance with other rules is a bit of a minefield, especially for an international Ph.D. student in the U.S. like myself. There were many factors to weigh, and I spent a frustrating few weeks with little guidance to ensure that I’m in compliance with rules concerning everything from immigration and full-time student status to health benefits and tuition fee. Part of this difficulty stemmed from certain specific aspects of the situation that I was in, but a bigger part of it was also that there aren’t very many practical guides out there for international Ph.D. students wanting to do internships during the semester (which as I learnt recently, many are interested in). And so I decided to put together this informal and practical guide that might be helpful for students that might be in similar situations.

Emory Global Health Case Competition - A Reflection

1 minute read

Published: March 20, 2021

A reflection after taking part in the 2021 Emory Global Health Case Competition.

The Earth-bending Scale of the Great Lakes

Published: January 11, 2021

Did you know that you don’t need to be in space to observe the effects of earth’s curvature?

Voices of the Global Community

The advising relationship is at the core of academic advising.

Elizabeth M. Higgins , University of Southern Maine

Student learning is at the center of what advisors do, with the development of an effective advising relationship as the gateway to that learning experience.  According to Campbell and Nutt (2008), academic advising is a “powerful educational strategy to engage and support student learning.”  Through the educational process of advising, an advisor can guide students through meaning-making, skill identification and development, critical thinking, scaffolding of knowledge, and acquisition of transferrable skills (Lowenstein, 2009).  Academic advisors can be the transformational leaders in the learning process by focusing on the individuality of the student, assisting them in thinking independently, motivating them through inspiration, and acting as role models (Barbuto, Story, Fritz, & Schinstock, 2011).  Although the advisor may be the leader, there are two individuals within the advising relationship: both need to be engaged in order to effect a partnership. 

Relational Theory in Advising

Assessment of advising has assisted many advising programs in identifying outcomes associated with both student learning as well as advisor and advising program delivery.  Learning and programmatic outcomes identify what should be learned through the process and delivery of academic advising.  They also give the advising programs the ability to identify who is responsible for what.  However, the challenge is identifying how to build an advising relationship that is centered on teaching and learning and that works for both the student and advisor.  A dip into interpersonal relations theory provides guidance.

The interpersonal relations theory of Hildegard Peplau (1991/1952) provides clarification on the building blocks and progression of a relationship within a helping profession.  This theory highlights the importance of getting to know relational partners and their roles, creating a sense of belonging and ownership for the process, developing and achieving goals, and creating readiness for independence.   According to Peplau, there are four relational phases of the interpersonal process inherent in a professional practice: orientation, identification, exploration, resolution.  The relationship is viewed as developing over time through interactions that engage both partners, sharing knowledge, and working towards identified goals (Peplau, 1977).  A key component in promoting an engaged partnership is active dialog between the relational partners (Johnson & Morgan, 2005; Lowenstein, 2009).  There are particular relational elements that contribute to and promote an engaged advising partnership: trust, communication, and connectedness.

Trust has been found to create a bond between individuals as they work cooperatively and explore experiences (Bordin, 1979, 1983).  This concept is also highlighted in the NACADA (2006) concept statement: “the relationship between advisors and students is fundamental and is characterized by mutual respect, trust, and ethical behavior” (para. 1).  Each interaction the advising pair has is an opportunity to build the foundational element of trust. 

Institutions often promote academic advisors as individuals upon whom students can depend for accurate information, help with goal setting and attainment, educational direction, and assistance with their future aspirations.  This presumes a level of trust at the onset of the relationship that is known to take time to build (Beck, 1999).  Assisting students and advisors with early engagement can help in creating opportunities for ongoing contact that supports the development of trust between the relational pair.  The early engagement connects the two individuals together on a professional level in order for the advising pair to converse, question, listen, and share.  Listening and appropriate questioning was found to build rapport and develop trust within the advising relationship (Thornhill & Yoder, 2010).

Ongoing communication can also support student and advisor connection in order to share information, learning opportunities, and engage in dialog about the student’s goals, strengths, and interests (Young-Jones, Burt, Dixon, Hawthorne, 2013).  Broad communications sent electronically or in hardcopy to individual students or to student groups are helpful in sharing information, but not as the way to develop an interpersonal relationship; for relationship development, a more direct approach to communication is necessary.  Results of a research study exploring the experiences of 611 students showcased that conversations between the student and advisor that focus on academic life helped identify areas of support needed for student success (Young-Jones et al., 2013).  Advising conversations can also support the development of an environment where a student feels comfortable and supported to share information, ask questions, and experience self-reflection (Hughey, 2011). 

Campbell and Nutt (2008) suggest that academic advising facilitates the connection students have with the institutional community.  If academic advising acts as a connector, what creates the connection between the student and the advisor? This question is critical in understanding the interpersonal relationship found in the practice of academic advising.  Creating the connection between the student and the advisor begins with understanding the definition of relational connection. 

Brown (2010) states that “connection is when an individual feels seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgement.”  Advisors are the individuals who can facilitate interactions where students can be acknowledged, listened to, and valued for who they are in the present moment without preconceived judgements.  As with any developing relationship, there is an amount of authentic sharing from both partners that must occur in order to develop a trust-filled relationship.  Sharing also creates a level of vulnerability within the partnership that can be offset by trust and communication.  The sharing and actions of both relational partners highlight the need for advising to be a relationship where individuals share responsibilities (Allen & Smith, 2008; Crockett, 1985; Frost, 1991).  These shared responsibilities and ongoing conversations promote an environment for relational growth.

How Can Institutions and Advising Programs Assist?

Beres (2010) states that the relational skills are the most challenging area in which to provide professional development.  Identifying this challenge, along with the knowledge of the critical nature of a good academic advising relationship, highlights the importance for institutions to take on this professional development responsibility.  Understanding more about the advising relationship allows advising practitioners to identify areas to strengthen the practice of advising and provide an effective and satisfying academic advising experience for students.  These opportunities must be contextual in that they are designed to match the identified needs of students and advisors at a particular institution.  Influenced by Beres (2010), the following relational topics offer advisors and advising programs a starting point to begin to design offerings that can be complemented with specific institutional needs. 

• Creating your physical advising space
• Making appropriate referrals
• Using creativity during the advising session
• How to have difficult conversations with students that are productive
• Gaining student information through active listening and observing
• Student goal setting
• How to create boundaries within the advising relationship
• Guiding students through the decision-making process
• Understanding non-verbal cues
• Tips on being the authentic advisor
• What does an advising conversation look like
• Good advising doesn’t have to be warm and fuzzy
• Students with mental health issues
• Adult students
• Veteran students
• At-risk students
• High achieving students
• Students as parents
• Students with disabilities
• Online students
• Undecided students
• Transfer student
• Graduate students

Grappling with how best to provide professional development opportunities that support an engaged and meaningful advisor-advisee relationship is a challenge critical to continuing to improve a practice essential to student success in college.  The goal should be to support the development of an advisor–advisee relationship that is authentic, grounded in teaching and learning, and built over time through trust, communication, and connectedness.  To be effective within the relational realm, it is highly recommended that advisors and advising programs understand and embrace these relational components as primary pillars of the academic advising relationship.  

Elizabeth M. Higgins , Ed.D. Director of Academic Advising University of Southern Maine [email protected]

Allen, J. M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (5), 397-411.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., Story, J. S., Fritz, S. M., & Schinstock, J. L. (2011). Full range advising: Transforming the advisor-advisee experience. Journal of College Student Development, 52 (6), 656-670.

Barnett, S., Roach, S., & Smith, M. (2006). Microskills: Advisor behaviors that improve communication with advisees. NACADA Journal, 26 (1), 6-12.

Beck, A. (1999). Advising undecided students: Lessons from chaos theory. NACADA Journal, 19 (1), 45-49.

Beres, K. (2010). Delivery systems: Workshops, lectures, panels and presentations. In J. G. Voller, M. Miller, & S. L. Neste (Eds.), Comprehensive advisor training and development: Practices that deliver . NACADA monograph series no. 21 (pp. 79-88).

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16 (3), 252-260. doi:10.1037/h0085885

Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The counseling psychologist, 11 (1), 35-42. doi:10.1177/0011000083111007

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: Supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement . Peer Review, 10(1), 4–7.

Crockett, D. S. (1985). Academic advising. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of College Student Personnel, 13 (1), 12-17.

Ender, S. C. (1994). Impediments to developmental advising. NACADA Journal, 14 (2), 105-107.

Frost, S. H. (1991). Fostering the critical thinking of college women through academic advising and faculty contact. Journal of College Student Development, 32 (4), 359-366.

Harrison, E. (2009). What constitutes good academic advising? Nursing students' perceptions of academic advising. Journal of Nursing Education, 48 (7), 361-366.

Hughey, J. K. (2011). Strategies to enhance interpersonal relations in academic advising. NACADA Journal, 31 (2), 22-32.

Johnson, E. J., & Morgan, B. L. (2005). Advice on advising: Improving a comprehensive university's program. Teaching of Psychology, 32 (1), 15-18.

Lowenstein, M. (2009). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal, 29 (1), 123-131.

NACADA. (2006). NACADA concept of academic advising. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Concept-of-Academic-Advising-a598.aspx  

NACADA. (2017). Academic Advising Core Competencies Model. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/About-Us/NACADA-Leadership/Administrative-Division/Professional-Development-Committee/PDC-Advisor-Competencies.aspx

Peplau, H. E. (1991). Interpersonal relations in nursing: A conceptual frame of reference for psychodynamic nursing . New York, NY: Springer. (Original work published 1952).

Peplau, H. E. (1997). Peplau's theory of interpersonal relations. Nursing Science Quarterly, 10, 162-167.

Thornhill, K. & Yoder, F. (2010). Teaching the soft skills necessary for building advising relationships. In J.G. Voller, M. Miller, & S. L. Neste (Eds.), Comprehensive advisor training and development: Practices that deliver . NACADA monograph series no. 21. (pp. 171-177).

Young-Jones, A. D., Burt, T. D., Dixon, S., & Hawthorne, M. J. (2013). Academic advising: does it really impact student success? Quality Assurance in Education, 21 (1), 7-19.

Cite this article using APA style as: Higgins, E.M. (2017, June). The advising relationship is at the core of academic advising. Academic Advising Today , 40 (2). Retrieved from [insert url here] 

Related Articles

Post comment, in the current issue.

• Consideration of the Relationship Between the NACADA Pillar Documents, and Placement of Each Pillar in a Hierarchy of Students’ Needs
• Supporting Indigenous Students at Predominantly White Institutions
• Advising Strategies to Combat Challenges in Teacher Preparation Programs
• Improving the Quality of Graduate and Professional Student Annual Progress Reports
• Remote Academic Advising: A Review of the Post-Pandemic Literature
• Cultivating Excellence: A Structured Approach to Professional Development in Academic Advising
• Retaining Advisors Through a Trauma-Informed Leadership Approach
• Money as Medicine in Advisor Wellness
• Re-Framing My Approach to Mentorship
• Integrating Positive Psychology Principles into Academic Coaching Practices
• Serving Our Students More Effectively: Partnerships Between Advisors and Registrar Staff

Community Blog

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

What Makes A Good PhD Supervisor?

• By Dr Harry Hothi
• August 12, 2020

A good PhD supervisor has a track record of supervising PhD students through to completion, has a strong publication record, is active in their research field, has sufficient time to provide adequate supervision, is genuinely interested in your project, can provide mentorship and has a supportive personality.

Introduction

The indicators that you’ll have the best chance of succeeding in your PhD project are multi-factorial. You’ll need to secure funding, find a research project that you’re interested in and is within your academic area of expertise, maybe even write your own research proposal, and find a good supervisor that will help guide you through PhD life.

As you research more into life as a doctoral student, you’ll appreciate that choosing a good supervisor is one of the most important factors that can influence the success of your project, and even If you complete your PhD at all. You need to find a good supervisory relationship with someone who has a genuine research interest in your project.

This page outlines the top qualities to look for as indicators of an ideal PhD supervisor. But before we get to that, we should be clear on precisely what the supervisor is there to do, and what they are not.

The Role of a PhD Supervisor

A PhD supervisor is there to guide you as you work through PhD life and help you make informed decisions about how you shape your PhD project. The key elements of their supervisory role include:

• To help ensure that you stay on schedule and maintain constant progress of your research so that you ultimately finish your PhD within your intended time frame, typically three to four years.
• To advise and guide you based on their knowledge and expertise in your subject area.
• To help you in the decision-making process as you design, prepare and execute your study design.
• To work with you as you analyse your raw data and begin to draw conclusions about key findings that are coming out of your research.
• To provide feedback and edits where necessary on your manuscripts and elements of your thesis writing.
• To encourage and motivate you and provide ongoing support as a mentor.
• To provide support at a human level, beyond just the academic challenges.

It’s important that you know from the outset what a supervisor isn’t there to do, so that your expectations of the PhDstudent-supervisor relationship are correct. A supervisor cannot and should not create your study design or tell you how you should run your experiments or help you write your thesis. Broadly speaking, you as a PhD student will create, develop and refine content for your thesis, and your supervisor will help you improve this content by providing you with continuous constructive feedback.

There’s a balance to be found here in what makes a good PhD supervisor, ranging from one extreme of providing very little support during a research project, to becoming too involved in the running of the project to the extent that it takes away from it being an independent body of work by the graduate student themselves. Ultimately, what makes a good supervisor is someone you can build a rapport with, who helps bring out the best in you to produce a well written, significant body of research that contributes novel findings to your subject area.

Read on to learn the key qualities you should consider when looking for a good PhD supervisor.

Qualities to Look For in A Good PhD Supervisor

1. a track record of successful phd student supervision.

A quick first check to gauge how good a prospective supervisor is is to find out how many students they’ve successfully supervised in the past; i.e. how many students have earned their PhD under their supervision. Ideally, you’d want to go one step further and find out:

• How many students they’ve supervised in total previously and of those, what percentage have gone onto gain their PhDs; however, this level of detail may not always be easy to find online. Most often though, a conversation with a potential supervisor and even their current or previous students should help you get an idea of this.
• What were the project titles and specifically the areas of research that they supervised on? Are these similar to your intended project or are they significantly different from the type of work performed in the academic’s lab in the past? Of the current students in the lab, are there any projects that could complement yours
• Did any of the previous PhD students publish the work of their doctoral research in peer-reviewed journals and present at conferences? It’s a great sign if they have, and in particular, if they’re named first authors in some or all of these publications.

This isn’t to say that a potential supervisor without a track record of PhD supervision is necessarily a bad fit, especially if the supervisor is relatively new to the position and is still establishing their research group. It is, however, reassuring if you know they have supervision experience in supporting students to successful PhD completion.

2. Is an Expert in their Field of Research

As a PhD candidate, you will want your supervisor to have a high level of research expertise within the field that your own research topic sits in. This expertise will be essential if they are to help guide you through your research and keep you on track to what is most novel and impactful to your research area.

Your supervisor doesn’t necessarily need to have all the answers to questions that arise in your specific PhD project, but should know enough to be able to have useful conversations about your research. It will be your responsibility to discover the answers to problems as they arise, and you should even expect to complete your PhD with a higher level of expertise about your project than your supervisor.

The best way to determine if your supervisor has the expertise to supervise you properly is to look at their publication track record. The things you need to look for are:

• How often do they publish papers in peer-reviewed journals, and are they still actively involved in new papers coming out in the research field?
• What type of journals have they published in? For example, are most papers in comparatively low impact factor journals, or do they have at least some in the ‘big’ journals within your field?
• How many citations do they have from their research? This can be a good indicator of the value that other researchgroups place on these publications; having 50 papers published that have been cited only 10 times may (but not always) suggest that this research is not directly relevant to the subject area or focus from other groups.
• How many co-authors has your potential supervisor published with? Many authors from different institutions is a good indicator of a vast collaborative professional network that could be useful to you.

There’re no hard metrics here as to how many papers or citations an individual needs to be considered an expert, and these numbers can vary considerably between different disciplines. Instead, it’s better to get a sense of where your potential supervisor’s track record sits in comparison to other researchers in the same field; remember that it would be unfair to directly compare the output of a new university lecturer with a well-established professor who has naturally led more research projects.

Equally, this exercise is a good way for you to better understand how interested your supervisor will be in your research; if you find that much of their research output is directly related to your PhD study, then it’s logical that your supervisor has a real interest here. While the opposite is not necessarily true, it’s understandable from a human perspective that a supervisor may be less interested in a project that doesn’t help to further their own research work, especially if they’re already very busy.

Two excellent resources to look up publications are Google Scholar and ResearchGate .

3. Has Enough Time to Provide Good PhD Supervision

This seems like an obvious point, but it’s worth emphasising: how smoothly your PhD goes and ultimately how successful it is, will largely be influenced by how much time your research supervisor has to provide guidance, constructive academic advice and mentorship. The fact that your supervisor is the world’s leading expert in your field becomes a moot point if they don’t have time to meet you.

A good PhD supervisor will take the time to meet with you regularly in person (ideally) or remotely and be reachable and responsive to questions as and when they arise (e.g. through email or video calling). As a student, you want to have a research environment where you know you can drop by your supervisors’ office for a quick chat, or that you’ll see them around the university regularly; chance encounters and corridor discussions are sometimes the most impactful when working through problems.

Unsurprisingly, however, most academics who are well-known experts in their field are also usually some of the busiest too. It’s common for established academic supervisors to have several commitments competing for their time. These can include teaching and supervising undergraduate students, masters students and post-docs, travelling to collaborator meetings or invited talks, managing the growth of their academic department or graduate school, sitting on advisory boards and writing grants for funding applications. Beware of the other obligations they may have and how this could impact your work relationship.

You’ll need to find a balance here to find a PhD supervisor who has the academic knowledge to support you, but also the time to do so; talking to their current and past students will help you get a sense of this. It’s also reassuring to know that your supervisor has a permanent position within your university and has no plans for a sabbatical during your time as a PhD researcher.

4. Is a Good Mentor with a Supportive Personality

A PhD project is an exercise in independently producing a substantial body of research work; the primary role of your supervisor should be to provide mentoring to help you achieve this. You want to have a supervisor with the necessary academic knowledge, but it is just as important to have a supportive supervisor who is actively willing and able to provide you constructive criticism on your work in a consistent manner. You’ll likely get a sense of their personality during your first few meetings with them when discussing your research proposal; if you feel there’s a disconnect between you as a PhD student and your potential supervisor at this stage, it’s better to decide on other options with different supervisors.

A good supervisor will help direct you towards the best outcomes in your PhD research when you reach crossroads. They will work with you to develop a structure for your thesis and encourage you to set deadlines to work to and push you to achieve these. A good mentor should be able to recognise when you need more support in a specific area, be it a technical academic hurdle or simply some guidance in developing efficient work patterns and routines, and have the communication skills to help you recognise and overcome them.

A good supervisor should share the same mindset as you about finishing your PhD within a reasonable time frame; in the UK this would be within three to four years as a full-time university student. Their encouragement should reflect this and (gently) push you to set and reach mini-milestones throughout your project to ensure you stay on track with progress. This is a great example of when a supportive personality and positive attitude is essential for you both to maintain a good professional relationship throughout a PhD. The ideal supervisor will bring out the best in you without becoming prescriptive in their guidance, allowing you the freedom to develop your own working style.

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

To sum up, the qualities you should look for in a good PhD supervisor are that they have a strong understanding of your research field, demonstrated by regular and impactful publications, have a proven track record of PhD supervision, have the time to support you, and will do so by providing mentorship rather than being a ‘boss’.

As a final point, if you’re considering a research career after you finish your PhD journey, get a sense of if there may any research opportunities to continue as a postdoc with the supervisor if you so wanted.

This post explains where and how to write the list of figures in your thesis or dissertation.

Are you always finding yourself working on sections of your research tasks right up until your deadlines? Are you still finding yourself distracted the moment

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

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

Browse PhDs Now

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

Ryan is in the final write up stages of his PhD at the University of Southampton. His research is on understanding narrative structure, media specificity and genre in transmedia storytelling.

Charlene is a 5th year PhD candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She studies depression and neuroticism in people with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) using MR Imaging and behavioural tests.

Join Thousands of Students

IndiaBioscience

Columns phd cafe, do’s and don’ts for a healthy student-advisor relationship.

Parul Anup recently completed her PhD from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai . In this next article in our PhD Café series, she talks about the expectations that graduate students and Principal Investigators (PIs) have from each other, and how keeping these in mind can help in building a healthy mentor-mentee relationship.

Most relationships have unexpressed underlying expectations which, if unfulfilled, can give rise to frustration, resentment, and misunderstanding between the people involved. Such expectations are prevalent in both personal and professional relationships and an inability to fulfil them could be harmful, particularly in professional scenarios. This is because personal relationships often have a lot of room for acceptance, compromises, and freedom to overcome such issues, which may be missing from professional relationships.

A few years back, my department took a novel initiative by bringing all the graduate students and thesis advisors together in the same room to address these underlying unsaid expectations on an open platform. The plan was to break these expectations down and discuss their importance and feasibility for both advisors and students. 

Looking back, I think it was a great initiative. The points discussed in that meeting were very helpful for both students and advisors. In my own experience, realization of those expectations as a student has helped me significantly in developing a healthy relationship with my thesis advisor as well as my thesis committee members. Some of the advisors present at the meeting have also expressed that the discussion helped them gain useful insights into students’ expectations that they can work upon. 

I am penning down some of the points emerging out of that meeting here, in the hope that other students, and perhaps advisors, see the value of such open discussions. 

What do advisors expect from their students?

The first point I realized was that most advisors expect their students to take responsibility for their research projects . Trust me, nothing puts them more at ease than a student taking full responsibility for the project, which includes being consistently involved in the project, from conception to completion. It also means keeping up with the literature and bringing in new and relevant insights. 

On a daily basis, this responsibility includes thinking about the experiments and potential interpretations of the data, troubleshooting, and planning the next set of experiments. Another very important expectation is that the student should take the initiative when it comes to discussions with the advisor and should come to such discussions with a clear agenda in mind. 

None of these expectations seems unreasonable, particularly considering that it is the student’s project and his/​her own scientific journey. However, the catch here is maintaining a balance. Both of these scenarios can be actively harmful — (1) doing everything by yourself without factoring in your advisor’s expertise, or (2) not thinking at all and relying on your advisor for every little thing (and blaming them when something does not work out). 

To strike this balance, one must understand the personality and philosophy that their PI operates on. For example, some PIs might just want to know the broad experimental plan, while others would like to see a detailed breakdown of each of your experiments with a timeline. Frequent and consistent communication with the PI comes handy in this situation. In fact, a lack of clear communication can stress out both advisors and students. 

Many students think that expressing their thoughts and expectations regarding experiments or their journey as a graduate student and plans for the future might leave a negative impression on their advisors. However, this is not true at all. In fact, most advisors appreciate such a discussion, because it suggests that the student is indeed invested in his/​her journey as a graduate student. 

Such a discussion also keeps surprises off the table and helps in opening dialogues on potential points of disagreement that can be worked upon slowly to reach a compromise that would favour both the student and the PI. Such discussions, though they can be uncomfortable at first, go a long way in maintaining a healthy student-mentor relationship.

Another expectation that the advisors expressed during the meeting was an understanding on the part of the students that PIs are busy people with many other responsibilities , such as doing administrative work, writing grants, and monitoring the progress of other graduate students. Advisors, therefore, expect students to organize themselves such that most of the student-mentor interactions are time and value-effective. 

This means that one should avoid abrupt plan changes as far as possible, like cancelling a pre-scheduled meeting, sending an abstract/​poster/​presentation for revision a day before the deadline, asking for a recommendation letter only a few days before the submission deadline etc. Additionally, it helps to send regular reminders, in case something important skips the PI’s mind. Being organized (time-efficient) also includes giving your advisor frequent, succinct and structured updates of your data.

While we are on the subject of data, advisors obviously expect students to follow ethical guidelines with regards to data generation, analysis, and organization . Since no advisor can micromanage a student at the level of experimentation, they particularly appreciate it if they can rely on the ethical lab practices of a student. A good lab notebook keeping practice is both a starting point and an indicator of such good lab practice. Advisors also expect that the student’s data is readily accessible, replicable, and can be traced back to the original experiments. Being honest with the advisors about mistakes or errors while doing experiments also falls under good lab practice. 

Lastly, and very importantly, advisors expect students to maintain a healthy and scientifically sound environment in the lab . Research students spend a lot of their time in their labs (sometimes >12 hours a day). It is therefore essential that students invest and put consistent efforts in maintaining an environment that is apt for their mental fitness and growth. This includes openly discussing experiments, ideas, and scientific studies, helping each other, and being receptive of critical feedback from peers. In research, one is likely to feel frustrated for various reasons, and a healthy and supportive lab environment can cater to exactly such situations and help sustain an overall positive environment. 

What do students expect from their advisors?

When it came to students, a common theme was immediately apparent: the students attending the meeting expected their PIs to be mentors, rather than just scientific advisors . They expected a mentor-mentee relationship with a more balanced power equation, rather than a boss-employee relationship. To students, being a mentor meant that the advisor would be more open to the student’s ideas about experiments, science, careers, or their journey as a researcher or as an individual. 

Another aspect of mentorship that came up during the meeting was PIs treating their relationship with their students as a partnership . This also involves extending empathy (not sympathy) to students for the troubles they faced and providing support (not hand-holding) when required. Students also want their advisors to understand or at least take into consideration the student’s point of view, strengths, and weaknesses before assigning them a project, or while assessing their performance and guiding them through the research program. 

The students expressed that when advisors act as mentors, it gives them (the students) a sense of lowered communication barriers, more freedom, and independence. The students understood that mentorship required more time and effort on the part of the advisor and conveyed that if advisors are open and willing to put some effort in this direction, they would feel reassured. 

Besides this, surprisingly, many of the students’ expectations were similar to the advisors’ expectations. Students expected advisors to value their time equally . They would also greatly appreciate if advisors send revisions on important documents including synopsis, paper drafts, abstracts, posters in time or otherwise inform them about the delays, if any. Students also expect advisors to be sensitive to the fact that students have limited time to finish their PhD or projects. 

Following ethical practices was another expectation that was similar between advisors and students. Additionally, students expect that advisors would work towards giving a  healthy, happy and safe working environment which is unbiased with respect to gender, nationality, origin or background of the students. 

Finally, students expect that they would be given their own physical, mental and emotional space where they can exist as individuals free to follow their passions, hobbies, or personal lives, and where professional and personal boundaries are respected. 

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –

I don’t know if listing all these points out in the open transformed the mentors and students but it definitely made them more aware and sensitive to each other’s expectations, which is the basic foundation of a healthy environment. I hope such open discussions would be adopted by more institutes who strive towards a healthy working environment.

Stack Exchange Network

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

Q&A for work

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

How should be your relationship with your PhD advisor [closed]

What kind of relation should one have with their supervisor ? Could one talk informally with them ? would you get their phone number to discuss things on the phone ?

• 1 I do this all the time. This question is subjective and opinion based. –  Coder Commented Feb 25, 2021 at 13:13
• 2 why do you have to judge the question ? just answer it ! –  Sam Commented Feb 25, 2021 at 13:16
• 1 Everyone judges questions here, actually. Don't be offended. I hope my answer is a bit more than opinion, but you are the judge of answers. –  Buffy Commented Feb 25, 2021 at 13:19

This depends on personalities. For some it is perfectly acceptable to be very informal. For others, such as mine, a more formal relationship was needed. But, even in a formal relationship, you need to have your questions answered and concerns addressed. But it is really a matter of "style" how you go about that.

So, the first thing to do is ask the advisor what they prefer and how frequently it is "good" to touch base. Even with a formal relationship, an advisor might want a progress report every couple of weeks (or more, or less).

But work it out initially. And, you want to have a good relationship so that they will be willing to support you after you finish, as well as during your degree years.

Of course everything was, and we hope will be, in the absence of a pandemic.

Note that different advisors rank different parts of their job differently. Some value their own research very highly, which can be a problem if they aren't as helpful as they should be. I often worry about untenured advisors for this reason (and once suffered because of it until I switched). But, I'd just guess that phone conversations with advisors are pretty rare (though mumble mumble pandemic).

And you might also want to look at my earlier question and its answers on this site: How do you build a healthy and productive relationship with your supervisor?

• The most important thing students forget is: "... you need to have your questions answered and concerns addressed" (as mentioned in the answer) –  Coder Commented Feb 25, 2021 at 17:02

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

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

Hot Network Questions

• What to call a test that consists of running a program with only logging?
• How to volunteer as a temporary research assistant?
• Equations for dual cubic curves
• Passport Carry in Taiwan
• What is an intuitive way to rename a column in a Dataset?
• Fill a grid with numbers so that each row/column calculation yields the same number
• Is there a faster way of expanding multiple polynomials with power?
• My visit is for two weeks but my host bought insurance for two months is it okay
• How could Bangladesh protect itself from Indian dams and barrages?
• DATEDIFF Rounding
• Trying to find an old book (fantasy or scifi?) in which the protagonist and their romantic partner live in opposite directions in time
• Variable usage in arithmetic expansions
• My colleagues and I are travelling to UK as delegates in an event and the company is paying for all our travel expenses. what documents are required
• What would be non-slang equivalent of "copium"?
• How would increasing atomic bond strength affect nuclear physics?
• What happens when a helicopter loses the engine and autorotation is not initiated?
• Is there any video of an air-to-air missile shooting down an aircraft?
• Who was the "Dutch author", "Bumstone Bumstone"?
• What are the risks of a compromised top tube and of attempts to repair it?
• Why doesn't the world fill with time travelers?
• Can a 2-sphere be squashed flat?
• wp_verify_nonce is always false even when the nonces are identical
• Existence of a special ordering of the elements of a finite group
• Can I use "historically" to mean "for a long time" in "Historically, the Japanese were almost vegetarian"?

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="phd advisor relationship"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

New graduate student life advisor to support the student experience.

August 26, 2024

Graduate Student Life Advisor Olivia Hopewell joined the Graduate School on July 8 to support graduate students in problem solving, connecting with campus resources, and becoming self-advocates.

Learn more about Hopewell’s background, goals, and interests in the following Q&A.

What is your educational and professional background?

I have a B.A. in classics and philosophy from Augustana University in South Dakota, and received my M.A. and Ph.D. from Bryn Mawr College in the field of Latin, Greek, and classical studies in 2019 and 2023, respectively. I’ve worked as an assistant registrar, non-profit domestic violence educator, and an adjunct professor (including for Cornell’s Prison Education Program, which I am continuing to do in the upcoming school year). I have experience advising undergraduate and graduate students in both student life matters and research skills. As a graduate student I established an anti-racism and social justice activism group, and these ideals strongly influence my work. Additionally, I have certification in trauma-informed group facilitation and training in academic conflict resolution. I also started waiting tables at age 11, so let’s just say I’m good at working with even difficult people. 

My own research is broadly concerned with identity formation and ethical engagement with others, and I see these as directly influencing my work with students. I always say that I’m just interested in how to be better at being in the world with others, and what I’ve learned is that it takes a deliberate act of meeting others where they are, so that’s the attitude I bring to this role. Basically, I have spent  a lot  of time thinking about what makes for a healthy and productive graduate experience. I’m so excited to transfer my advisory, pedagogical, and community-building skills to this position. 

What is your role in the Graduate School?

My role is to foster a healthy student experience by working with members of the Graduate School community, both students and faculty, to address their needs through a blend of case management and program support. That might sound vague, so here are some examples:

For students: this might look like meeting with a graduate or professional student to advise them on “non-academic” matters, help them problem-solve, connect them with campus resources, and support them in self-advocacy. “Non-academic” concerns might include mental health concerns, insurance questions, student-parent accommodations, Student Disability Services (SDS) questions, mentor relationship advice, alt-ac career questions, etc. 

For faculty: this might look like meeting with a faculty member to discuss a specific student-related concern and brainstorm ways to address the concern that honor both policy requirements and human needs. Perhaps there is a concern with the well-being of an advisee—our office can help a faculty member navigate this scenario! 

What excites you about stepping into this position?

In general, my professional interests are driven by a passion for justice and humanity in academia. I thoroughly enjoy working with graduate students and faculty because I think this community’s unique needs are often under-considered in university settings. I am energized by problem-solving and find student support work to be inherently rewarding. I’m thrilled to be joining a team that is passionate about the graduate student experience and strives to treat students and faculty alike as more than disembodied scholars. Not every institution has an office like this, and I mean it when I say that  everything  excites me about stepping into this position. 

What do you want graduate students to know about meeting with you?

I want to tell students that I am here to listen, I take their concerns seriously, and it is literally my job to try to figure out how to translate university-ese into language that feels accessible and meaningful. I’d love for them to leave my office (or Zoom room) feeling empowered, informed, and heard, and I am well aware that I can’t just  tell  them I’m a safe space; I have to actively create the conditions that allow for that experience. That’s a commitment I take very seriously!

What are your goals in this position?

My goals are to build off of this office’s work supporting students holistically and helping them navigate the graduate school environment, in all its forms. On a more emotional level, my goal is to create an empowering and humanizing environment, because it is crucial that we as administrators always remember the person behind the academic persona. On my first day, my supervisor, Associate Dean for Graduate Student Life Janna Lamey, shared that she’s motivated by the idea that “information is power,” and I think that’s a nice way to summarize the goals of our office: share information with those who need it so that they feel like they have power over the experience here. 

Can you provide some context to your personal experience in graduate school?

Being a proud first gen+low income (FGLI) scholar raised nowhere near academia, I entered grad school so uninformed. I didn’t know what a conference was, how fellowships worked, or how to build a relationship with an advisor. Needless to say, there was a steep learning curve in figuring out the very basics of “doing graduate school,” which was only exacerbated by complications in my personal life that most folks in their 20s and 30s (the average age-range of graduate students) can relate to. My first couple years were especially rough, and I learned a lot about the university system and students’ options for navigating it. I was lucky enough to have a wonderfully supportive mentor in my doctoral advisor, but even so I know firsthand how stressful funding confusion, academic uncertainty, and mental health concerns are for a graduate student. If you’re going through it and feel embarrassed to ask for help—don’t. Chances are, I’ve been there or know someone who has, and I can help or know someone who can. 

What do you like to do in your spare time?

If I’m being honest, I like to shut off because I feel like I was using my brain so much for so long that I appreciate a little idleness. I used to feel a lot of shame for not being hyper-productive all the time, but that just doesn’t fit what my brain likes or how I’ve come to feel about how intellectual growth takes place. A more concrete answer is that I love to hike with my partner and our dog, go camping, read horror novels (especially while camping), make soup, do crossword puzzles, listen to Chappell Roan and silly podcasts, look at my plants, and go thrift shopping. 

Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis

• Published: 04 May 2018
• Volume 116 , pages 161–180, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Jiaying Liu 1 ,
• Tao Tang 2 ,
• Xiangjie Kong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2698-3319 1 ,
• Amr Tolba 3 , 4 ,
• Zafer AL-Makhadmeh 3 &
• Feng Xia 1  

1058 Accesses

17 Citations

Explore all metrics

Advisor–advisee relationship is important in academic networks due to its universality and necessity. Despite the increasing desire to analyze the career of newcomers, however, the outcomes of different collaboration patterns between advisors and advisees remain unknown. The purpose of this paper is to find out the correlation between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ academic performance in Computer Science. Employing both quantitative and qualitative analysis, we find that with the increase of advisors’ academic age, advisees’ performance experiences an initial growth, follows a sustaining stage, and finally ends up with a declining trend. We also discover the phenomenon that accomplished advisors can bring up skilled advisees. We explore the conclusion from two aspects: (1) Advisees mentored by advisors with high academic level have better academic performance than the rest; (2) Advisors with high academic level can raise their advisees’ h-index ranking. This work provides new insights on promoting our understanding of the relationship between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ performance, as well as on advisor choosing.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Network-based indices of individual and collective advising impacts in mathematics

Ranking Academic Advisors: Analyzing Scientific Advising Impact Using MathGenealogy Social Network

The influence of academic advisors on academic network of Physics doctoral students: empirical evidence based on scientometrics analysis

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

https://www.aminer.cn .

Amjad, T., Ding, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, C., Daud, A., Tang, J., et al. (2017). Standing on the shoulders of giants. Journal of Informetrics , 11 (1), 307–323.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more . New York: Hachette Books.

Google Scholar  

Azoulay, P. (2012). Research efficiency: Turn the scientific method on ourselves. Nature , 484 (7392), 31–32.

Borders, L. D., Wester, K. L., Granello, D. H., Chang, C. Y., Hays, D. G., Pepperell, J., et al. (2012). Association for counselor education and supervision guidelines for research mentorship: Development and implementation. Counselor Education and Supervision , 51 (3), 162–175.

Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & Kostopoulos, K. (2014). Mentoring receipt and personality: Evidence for non-linear relationships. Journal of Business Research , 67 (2), 171–181.

Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 51 (1), 15–28.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology , 45 (3), 619–636.

Dobson, L. (2013). Effective practices of formal mentoring programs. Math Alliance Research Study , 3 , 1–3.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 10 (4), 309–320.

Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics , 114 (3), 393–408.

Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 83 (1), 106–116.

Glänzel, W., Heeffer, S., & Thijs, B. (2017). Lexical analysis of scientific publications for nano-level scientometrics. Scientometrics , 111 , 1–10.

Gollapalli, S. D., Mitra, P., & Giles, C. L. (2011). Ranking authors in digital libraries. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries , (pp. 251–254). ACM.

Hu, C., Wang, S., Yang, C.-C., & Wu, T.-Y. (2014). When mentors feel supported: Relationships with mentoring functions and protégés’ perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 35 (1), 22–37.

Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2015). The elements of mentoring . Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal , 26 (4), 608–625.

Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Sivertsen, G., Kristiansen, E. H., Aksnes, D. W., Borlaug, S. B., et al. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy , 42 , scu083.

Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature , 444 (7122), 1003–1004.

Letchford, A., Moat, H. S., & Preis, T. (2015). The advantage of short paper titles. Royal Society open science , 2 (8), 150266.

Ley, M. (2009). DBLP: Some lessons learned. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , 2 (2), 1493–1500.

Malmgren, R. D., Ottino, J. M., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010). The role of mentorship in protégé performance. Nature , 465 (7298), 622–626.

Moreira, C., Calado, P., & Martins, B. (2011). Learning to rank for expert search in digital libraries of academic publications. In Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence , (pp. 431–445). Springer.

Murphy, T. H. (2015). On great teachers. Journal of Legal Studies Education , 32 (1), 223–227.

Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 98 (2), 404–409.

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Owens, B. (2013). Research assessments: Judgement day. Nature , 502 (7471), 288–290.

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 43 (3), 251–265.

Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science , 354 (6312), aaf5239.

Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the rising star hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 74 (1), 11–17.

Tang, J., Jin, R., & Zhang, J. (2008). A topic modeling approach and its integration into the random walk framework for academic search. In Eighth IEEE international conference on data mining, 2008. ICDM’08 , (pp. 1055–1060). IEEE.

Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). Arnetminer: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , (pp. 990–998). ACM.

Tuesta, E. F., Delgado, K. V., Mugnaini, R., Digiampietri, L. A., Mena-Chalco, J. P., & Pérez-Alcázar, J. J. (2015). Analysis of an advisor–advisee relationship: An exploratory study of the area of exact and earth sciences in Brazil. PloS ONE , 10 (5), e0129065.

Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 (3), 410–423.

Wang, W., Liu, J., Xia, F., King, I., & Tong, H. (2017). Shifu: Deep learning based advisor–advisee relationship mining in scholarly big data. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion , (pp. 303–310). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

Wang, W., Liu, J., Yu, S., Zhang, C., Xu, Z., & Xia, F. (2016). Mining advisor–advisee relationships in scholarly big data: A deep learning approach. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on joint conference on digital libraries .

Wang, W., Yu, S., Bekele, T. M., Kong, X., & Xia, F. (2017). Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars academic ages. Scientometrics , 112 (1), 329–343.

Xia, F., Wang, W., Bekele, T. M., & Liu, H. (2017). Big scholarly data: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Big Data , 3 (1), 18–35.

Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). What did you expect? An examination of career-related support and social support among mentors and protégés. Journal of Management , 26 (4), 611–632.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through research group NO (RG-1438-027). Xiangjie Kong is supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant NO (DUT18JC09), and China Scholarship Council under Grant NO (201706060067).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, School of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

Jiaying Liu, Xiangjie Kong & Feng Xia

Chengdu College, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

Computer Science Department, Community College, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Amr Tolba & Zafer AL-Makhadmeh

Mathematics and Computer Science Department, Faculty of Science, Menoufia University, Shibin El Kom, Egypt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangjie Kong .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liu, J., Tang, T., Kong, X. et al. Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis. Scientometrics 116 , 161–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2762-2

Download citation

Received : 08 October 2017

Published : 04 May 2018

Issue Date : July 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2762-2

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic networks
• Scholarly data
• Social network analysis
• Advisor–advisee relationship
• Collaboration patterns
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Senior Partnerships Advisor

“UNOPS plays a critical role in providing management services for our life-saving, peacebuilding, humanitarian and development operations. I have seen many examples of how these activities help suffering people in troubled parts of the world.” -Ban Ki-moon, Former Secretary General of the United Nations

UNOPS mission is to expand the capacity of the UN system and its partners to implement peacebuilding, humanitarian and development operations that matter for people in need.

Working in some of the world’s most challenging environments, UNOPS vision is to always satisfy partners with management services that meet world-class standards of quality, speed and cost effectiveness. By assisting UN organizations, international financial institutions, governments and other development partners, UNOPS makes significant, tangible contributions to results on the ground.

UNOPS employs more than 7,000 personnel and on behalf of its partners creates thousands more work opportunities in local communities. With its headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark, a network of five regional offices, which are further divided into multi-country offices, UNOPS oversees activities in more than 80 countries.

UNOPS is committed to achieving a truly diverse workforce.

Based in Nairobi, Kenya, the Regional Office of the Africa Region supports UNOPS multi-country offices in the region, providing strategic direction, guidance and oversight as well as operational support to portfolio management, partnership building and risk management.

The Africa (AFR) region currently consists of five Multi-Country Offices based in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal, Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya, which each oversees partnership building and project implementation in a cluster of countries.

AFR regional office helps ensure that projects are executed to the highest standards, providing a shared knowledge base and ensuring that best practices and lessons learned are disseminated between projects across the entire region.

Summary of Key Functions

1. Partnership, Business acquisition and growth.

2. Knowledge management, innovation and technical support.

3. Efficient partner relationships and organizational work ethics and culture.

Under the direct supervision of the Regional Director, the Senior Partnership Advisor will perform the following functions: 1. The selected candidate would be required to travel extensively in and out of the region. Partnerships development, business acquisition and growth include the following responsibilities:

• Coordinate implementation of AFR business plan 2022-2025 and eventually lead the development of the 2026-2029 Business Plan. Undertake periodic updates of the AFR Business Plan as well as multi-country office  and country offices business plans.
• Coordinate donor and partner mapping exercise covering both the development and humanitarian landscape.
• Advise the AFR RD and Senior Management Team on the possibilities for UNOPS strategic positioning, vis-à-vis the potential partners.
• Coordinate preparation of substantive briefs on specific partners or development thematics, UNOPS strategic positioning, and partnership opportunities.
• Establish working relationships with key potential partners and attend relevant meetings in an effort to position UNOPS as a partner of choice.
• Lead, manage and coordinate agreement negotiations, drafting of project proposals, budget and other partnership and programme development communication.
• Identify regional and global events of relevance to the partnerships development in AFR and define and organize the regional presence and positioning at the events.  
• Coordinate and maintain regular communication with the (Corporate) Partnership and Liaison Group (PLG) in UNOPS HQ in Copenhagen.
• Coordinate and collaborate with relevant partnerships and programme personnel at the country, regional and UNOPS HQ level, to ensure aligned and coherent interactions with partners.

2. Knowledge management, innovation and technical support, including the following responsibilities:

• Advise on the policy-level issues related to partnerships and programme development for UNOPS AFR.
• Assess and keep abreast of the emerging trends in the development and humanitarian spheres in Africa, as related to UNOPS services.
• Identify and synthesize best practices and lessons learnt as related to partnership and programme development.
• Implement standards, tools and templates provided by PLG to effectively manage partnership and programme development within AFR.
• Contribute to UNOPS capacity development as related to partnerships, including promoting learning, coaching and mentoring the team members, field staff on UNOPS policy and practices for effective management of partnerships.
• Participate in and conduct the relevant training for the operations/ projects personnel, and participate in field missions, as required.
• Contribute to knowledge networks and communities of practice.
• Supervise the activities of junior staff within the AFR partnerships team.

3. Efficient partner relationships and organizational work ethics and culture, including the following responsibilities:

• Actively engage with partners to solicit feedback and gauge their satisfaction with UNOPS services;
• Coordinate implementation of partner surveys within AFR as appropriate.
• Undertake advocacy, public information and communication activities in collaboration with PLG and CG, when required.
• On behalf of the AFR Regional Director, participate in and report on the relevant inter-agency, donor and government coordination meetings, international conferences, summits, etc.
• Actively engage with internal stakeholders.
• Demonstrate professional and personal ethics, transparency and openness.
• Perform other related duties as required.

•  An Advanced University Degree (Master's or equivalent) in Business Administration, Political Science, International Relations, International Development, Social Sciences or a related discipline is required.
• A First-Level University Degree (Bachelor's) in combination with 2 years of relevant professional experience may be accepted in lieu of the advanced university degree.

Work Experience

• Minimum of 7 years of experience working in an international development context combining strategy development, execution and acquisition of new business and establishment of partnerships with UN organizations development finance institutions/ governments foundations/international NGOs or private sector organizations.
• Minimum of 2 years of in-depth knowledge of development issues and current donor and sectoral trends, with emphasis on deep understanding of Africa partner / donor landscape as well as Africa’s humanitarian and development challenges.
• Minimum of 2 years of knowledge / experience of Development Finance Institutions particularly of the Africa Development Bank.
• Minimum of 2 years of experience in dealing and negotiating with external stakeholders.
• Demonstrated experience working in Project and Programme management, International Development, Post-Disaster and/or Emergency contexts.
• Experience in the private sector and/or social impact investing.
• Experience in International Organizations is an asset, particularly current and targeted partners for AFR (e.g., donor governments, African regional entities, UN).
• PRINCE2® Foundation Certification and PRINCE2 Practitioner Certification.

Language requirements

Fluency in English is required. French is a plus.

Contract type:  International Individual Contractor Agreement (ICA). Contract level:  International ICA 3 (ICS-11). Contract duration : Open-ended, subject to organizational requirements, availability of funds and satisfactory performance.

Please note that UNOPS does not accept unsolicited resumes.

Applications received after the closing date will not be considered.

Please note that only shortlisted candidates will be contacted and advance to the next stage of the selection process, which involves various assessments.

UNOPS embraces diversity and is committed to equal employment opportunity. Our workforce consists of many diverse nationalities, cultures,  languages, races, gender identities, sexual orientations, and abilities. UNOPS seeks to sustain and strengthen this diversity to ensure equal opportunities as well as an inclusive working environment for its entire workforce. 

Qualified women and candidates from groups which are underrepresented in the UNOPS workforce are encouraged to apply. These include in particular candidates from racialized and/or indigenous groups, members of minority gender identities and sexual orientations, and people with disabilities.

We would like to ensure all candidates perform at their best during the assessment process.  If you are shortlisted and require additional assistance to complete any assessment, including reasonable accommodation, please inform our human resources team when you receive an invitation.

This position is based in Nairobi, Kenya which is a family duty station.

Terms and Conditions 

For staff positions only, UNOPS reserves the right to appoint a candidate at a lower level than the advertised level of the post. 

For retainer contracts, you must complete a few mandatory courses ( they take around 4 hours to complete)  in your own time, before providing services to UNOPS. Refreshers or new mandatory courses may be required during your contract. Please note that you will not receive any compensation for taking courses and refreshers. For more information on a retainer contract here .

All UNOPS personnel are responsible for performing their duties in accordance with the UN Charter and UNOPS Policies and Instructions, as well as other relevant accountability frameworks. In addition, all personnel must demonstrate an understanding of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a manner consistent with UN core values and the UN Common Agenda.

It is the policy of UNOPS to conduct background checks on all potential personnel. Recruitment in UNOPS is contingent on the results of such checks.

APPLICATION TIPS

Together, we build the future.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

• How to Enter Campus RainWorks

The Campus RainWorks Challenge is open to institutions of higher education across the United States and its territories. With the support of a faculty advisor, teams that compete are asked to design an innovative green infrastructure project for their campus that effectively manages stormwater pollution and also provides additional benefits to the campus community and environment. Teams that meet the eligibility requirements can submit entries.

Check out the official Campus RainWorks 2024 Competition Brief (pdf) (1.6 MB) (August 2024) from the 12th Annual Campus RainWorks Challenge to learn more about the challenge's design categories, submission requirements, eligibility requirements, and other rules for participation.

On this page:

Requirements

Cooperating organizations.

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Teams must submit a registration form to enter the Challenge. Once a team submits the registration form, they will receive a registration number via email. During the registration period this website will be updated with a link to the registration form.

Once a team submits the registration form, it will receive a registration number via email. EPA processes Campus RainWorks registrants in biweekly batches. Registration numbers are typically sent out on Mondays and Wednesdays during the registration period.

• 12th Campus RainWorks Challenge Announcement: September 2024
• Registration: January 2 to January 31, 2025
• Entries Due: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 – EARTH DAY!
• Winners announced: Summer 2025

EPA will award a total of $50,000 to first, second and third place winners. Winning teams will earn a student prize to be divided evenly among student team members and a faculty prize to support green infrastructure research and/or training. Prizes will be distributed as follows:

• 1st Prize: $30,000 Student Prize: $25,000 Faculty Prize: $5,000
• 2nd Prize: $13,000 Student Prize: $10,000 Faculty Prize: $3,000
• 3rd Prize: $7,000 Student Prize: $5,000 Faculty Prize: $2,000

These cooperating organizations assist EPA with conducting outreach and judging entries:

American Society of Landscape Architects

American Society of Civil Engineers

Water Environment Federation

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can the proposed project be off campus.

Teams can choose a nearby elementary, middle, or high school as their site; otherwise, all designs must be based on the team's campus.

Are community and technical colleges eligible to participate?

Yes, community colleges and technical colleges are eligible to compete. All students enrolled at an eligible institution as defined in the Campus RainWorks 2024 Competition Brief (pdf) (1.6 MB) can participate.

Are graduate students eligible to participate?

Yes, all undergraduate or graduate students enrolled at an eligible institution as defined in the Campus RainWorks 2024 Competition Brief (pdf) (1.6 MB) can participate.

Can a student team have more than one faculty advisor?

Yes, having more than one faculty advisor may lead to more multidisciplinary teams that can offer more comprehensive green infrastructure designs. However, teams must designate a primary faculty advisor to receive the faculty prize if the team were to win.

Can a college or university have more than one team?

Does a team need to show support from campus facilities staff.

Yes, teams need to show that that they have met with facilities staff and have their support.

Is there a recommended team size?

No, teams can be as large or as small as desired and interdisciplinary teams are highly encouraged.

What should my team do if we don't have time to complete our entry?

If you cannot complete your entry, please send an email to [email protected] informing us that your team is withdrawing from the challenge.

How will prizes be distributed?

EPA will pay student prizes via direct deposit. Student prizes will be distributed evenly among all student team members. Faculty prizes must be deposited into a departmental account under the care of the winning faculty advisor. All prizes are subject to federal income taxes. EPA will comply with Internal Revenue Service 1099 reporting requirements.

• Green Infrastructure Home
• About Green Infrastructure
• Green Infrastructure Planning, Design, & Implementation
• Using Green Infrastructure to Address Clean Water Act Requirements
• EPA Green Infrastructure Resources
• Climate Resiliency & Green Infrastructure
• Past Campus RainWorks Winners
• Campus RainWorks Resources
• Green Infrastructure Federal Collaborative