phd under supervision of

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.

Learn 10 ways to impress a PhD supervisor for increasing your chances of securing a project, developing a great working relationship and more.

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

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

Browse PhDs Now

How should you spend your first week as a PhD student? Here’s are 7 steps to help you get started on your journey.

Statistical treatment of data is essential for all researchers, regardless of whether you’re a biologist, computer scientist or psychologist, but what exactly is it?

Prof Cotton gained her DPhil in the school of education at Oxford University. She is now the Director of Academic Practice and Professor of Higher Education at Plymouth Marjon University.

Dr Patel gained his PhD in 2011 from Aston University, researching risk factors & systemic biomarkers for Type II diabetes & cardiovascular disease. He is currently a business director at a large global pharmaceutical.

Join Thousands of Students

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

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

Catherine Bannon

J. scott p. mccain, introduction.

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

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

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

Rule 1: Align research interests

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

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

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

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

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

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

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

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

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

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

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

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

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

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

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

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

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

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

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

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

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

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

Rule 9: Trust your gut

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

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

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

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 organization 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

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 184,700 academics and researchers from 4,977 institutions.

Register now

Research management

Sponsored by

Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors

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

Tara Brabazon

Additional links.

• More on this topic

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

Discover elsevier.

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} How to develop a researcher mindset as a PhD student

Formative, summative or diagnostic assessment a guide, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, how to assess and enhance students’ ai literacy, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Assumptions kill doctorates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Create a strong supervisory team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more insights from Tara Brabazon:

How to get students through their PhD thesis

10 truths a PhD supervisor will never tell you

How not to write a PhD thesis

14 essential PhD questions answered

How to develop a researcher mindset as a PhD student

A diy guide to starting your own journal, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, what does a university faculty senate do, hybrid learning through podcasts: a practical approach, how exactly does research get funded.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Teaching & Learning

• Education Excellence
• Professional development
• Case studies
• Teaching toolkits
• MicroCPD-UCL
• Assessment resources
• Student partnership
• Generative AI Hub
• Community Engaged Learning
• UCL Student Success

Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction  

Supervising projects, dissertations and research at UCL from undergraduate to PhD.

1 August 2019

Many academics say supervision is one of their favourite, most challenging and most fulfilling parts of their job.

Supervision can play a vital role in enabling students to fulfil their potential. Helping a student to become an independent researcher is a significant achievement – and can enhance your own teaching and research.

Supervision is also a critical element in achieving UCL’s strategic aim of integrating research and education. As a research-intensive university, we want all students, not just those working towards a PhD, to engage in research.

Successful research needs good supervision.

This guide provides guidance and recommendations on supervising students in their research. It offers general principles and tips for those new to supervision, at PhD, Master’s or undergraduate level and directs you to further support available at UCL.

What supervision means

Typically, a supervisor acts as a guide, mentor, source of information and facilitator to the student as they progress through a research project.

Every supervision will be unique. It will vary depending on the circumstances of the student, the research they plan to do, and the relationship between you and the student. You will have to deal with a range of situations using a sensitive and informed approach.

As a supervisor at UCL, you’ll help create an intellectually challenging and fulfilling learning experience for your students.

This could include helping students to:

• formulate their research project and question
• decide what methods of research to use
• become familiar with the wider research community in their chosen field
• evaluate the results of their research
• ensure their work meets the necessary standards expected by UCL
• keep to deadlines
• use feedback to enhance their work
• overcome any problems they might have
• present their work to other students, academics or interested parties
• prepare for the next steps in their career or further study.

At UCL, doctoral students always have at least two supervisors. Some faculties and departments operate a model of thesis committees, which can include people from industry, as well as UCL staff.

Rules and regulations

Phd supervision.

The supervision of doctoral students’ research is governed by regulation. This means that there are some things you must – and must not – do when supervising a PhD.  

• All the essential information is found in the UCL Code of Practice for Research Degrees .
• Full regulations in the UCL Academic Manual .  

All staff must complete the online course Introduction to Research Supervision at UCL  before beginning doctoral supervision.

Undergraduate and Masters supervision

There are also regulations around Master’s and undergraduate dissertations and projects. Check with the Programme Lead, your Department Graduate Tutor or Departmental Administrator for the latest regulations related to student supervision.

You should attend other training around research supervision. 

• Supervision training available through UCL Arena .

Doctoral (PhD) supervision: introducing your student to the university

For most doctoral students, you will often be their main point of contact at UCL and as such you are responsible for inducting them into the department and wider community.

Check that your student:

• knows their way around the department and about the facilities available to them locally (desk space, common room, support staff)
• has attended the Doctoral School induction and has received all relevant documents (including the Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees )
• has attended any departmental or faculty inductions and has a copy of the departmental handbook.

Make sure your student is aware of:

• key central services such as: Student Support and Wellbeing , UCL Students' Union (UCLU) and Careers
• opportunities to broaden their skills through UCL’s Doctoral Skills Development Programme
• the wider disciplinary culture, including relevant networks, websites and mailing lists.

The UCL Good Supervision Guide  (for PhD supervisors)

Establishing an effective relationship

The first few meetings you have with your student are critical and can help to set the tone for the whole supervisory experience for you and your student.

An early discussion about both of your expectations is essential:

• Find out your student’s motivations for undertaking the project, their aspirations, academic background and any personal matters they feel might be relevant.
• Discuss any gaps in their preparation and consider their individual training needs.
• Be clear about who will arrange meetings, how often you’ll meet, how quickly you’ll respond when the student contacts you, what kind of feedback they’ll get, and the norms and standards expected for academic writing.
• Set agendas and coordinate any follow-up actions. Minute meetings, perhaps taking it in turns with your student.
• For PhD students, hold a meeting with your student’s other supervisor(s) to clarify your expectations, roles, frequency of meetings and approaches.

Styles of supervision

Supervisory styles are often conceptualized on a spectrum from laissez-faire to more contractual or from managerial to supportive. Every supervisor will adopt different approaches to supervision depending on their own preferences, the individual relationship and the stage the student is at in the project.

Be aware of the positive and negative aspects of different approaches and styles.

Reflect on your personal style and what has prompted this – it may be that you are adopting the style of your own supervisor, or wanting to take a certain approach because it is the way that it would work for you.

No one style fits every situation: approaches change and adapt to accommodate the student and the stage of the project.

However, to ensure a smooth and effective supervision process, it is important to align your expectations from the very beginning. Discuss expectations in an early meeting and re-visit them periodically.

Checking the student’s progress

Make sure you help your student break down the work into manageable chunks, agreeing deadlines and asking them to show you work regularly.

Give your student helpful and constructive feedback on the work they submit (see the various assessment and feedback toolkits on the Teaching & Learning Portal ).

Check they are getting the relevant ethical clearance for research and/or risk assessments.

Ask your student for evidence that they are building a wider awareness of the research field.

Encourage your student to meet other research students and read each other’s work or present to each other.

Encourage your student to write early and often.

Checking your own performance

Regularly review progress with your student and any co-supervisors. Discuss any problems you might be having, and whether you need to revise the roles and expectations you agreed at the start.  

Make sure you know what students in your department are feeding back to the Student Consultative Committee or in surveys, such as the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) . 

Responsibility for the student’s research project does not rest solely on you. If you need help, talk to someone more experienced in your department. Whatever the problem is you’re having, the chances are that someone will have experienced it before and will be able to advise you.

Continuing students can often provide the most effective form of support to new students. Supervisors and departments can foster this, for example through organising mentoring, coffee mornings or writing groups.

Be aware that supervision is about helping students carry out independent research – not necessarily about preparing them for a career in academia. In fact, very few PhD students go on to be academics.

Make sure you support your student’s personal and professional development, whatever direction this might take.

Every research supervision can be different – and equally rewarding.

Where to find help and support

Research supervision web pages from the UCL Arena Centre, including details of the compulsory Research Supervision online course. 

Appropriate Forms of Supervision Guide from the UCL Academic Manual

the PhD diaries

Good Supervision videos  (Requires UCL login)

The UCL Doctoral School

Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees

Doctoral Skills Development programme

Student skills support (including academic writing)

Student Support and Wellbeing

UCL Students' Union (UCLU)  

UCL Careers

External resources

Vitae: supervising a docorate

UK Council for Graduate Education

Higher Education Academy – supervising international students (pdf)

Becoming a Successful Early Career Researcher , Adrian Eley, Jerry Wellington, Stephanie Pitts and Catherine Biggs (Routledge, 2012) - book available on Amazon

This guide has been produced by the UCL Arena Centre for Research-based Education . You are welcome to use this guide if you are from another educational facility, but you must credit the UCL Arena Centre. 

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

Research supervision at UCL

UCL Education Strategy 2016–21  

Connected Curriculum: a framework for research-based education

The Laidlaw research and leadership programme (for undergraduates)

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre 

Download a printable copy of this guide  

Case studies : browse related stories from UCL staff and students.

Sign up to the monthly UCL education e-newsletter  to get the latest teaching news, events & resources.  

Education events

Funnelback feed: https://search2.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-learn... Double click the feed URL above to edit

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

Tress Academic

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

May 14, 2019 by Tress Academic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here are our five pillars of good PhD supervision:

1. Guidance

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

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

2. Expertise

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

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

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

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

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

4. Regular interaction

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

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

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

4.1. Supervisory meetings

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

4.2. Spontaneous encounters

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

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

5. Advice on progress

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

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

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

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

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

How good is your supervision?

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

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

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

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

Related resources:

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

More information: 

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

© 2019 Tress Academic

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

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Cover Image

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

Your supervision filter

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

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

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

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Centred Supervisory Leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Resources

Supervising PhDs

UKCGE Good Supervisory Practice Framework .

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

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

Get Email Alerts

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

The Ultimate Guide to Emailing Prospective PhD Supervisor

Embarking on the journey towards a Ph.D. is a momentous step in one’s academic and professional life. As you set your sights on this challenging yet rewarding path, a crucial initial stride involves reaching out to prospective Ph.D. supervisors. The art of crafting that introductory email is more than a formality – it’s your first chance to make a lasting impression.

In the world of academia, where precision meets passion and mentorship is paramount, composing an email to a potential Ph.D. supervisor requires finesse. This blog post serves as a guide through the labyrinth of considerations, providing insights on how to artfully construct that crucial first email. From the subject line that beckons attention to the closing remarks that leave a positive resonance, we’ll delve into the intricacies of communication that can pave the way for meaningful mentorship.

So, whether you’re a prospective graduate student navigating the uncharted waters of doctoral studies or an academic advisor seeking to impart wisdom to your mentees, join us on this exploration of the nuanced art of emailing a prospective Ph.D. supervisor. Let’s unlock the secrets to making that digital handshake not just professional, but genuinely impactful. After all, in the realm of academic pursuits, the first email is more than a correspondence – it’s the prologue to a potential scholarly alliance.

Introduction

Subject line mastery, personalized greeting, introduction of yourself, expressing genuine interest.

• Aligning Your Academic and Research Background with the Professor's Work:

Showcasing Relevant Skills and Experiences:

Asking if the professor is currently accepting new phd students:, how to format and present attachments, showcasing humility and openness, conveying openness to discussing potential research directions:.

• Connecting Your Aspirations with the Professor's Expertise:

Leaving the Door Open for Further Discussion:

Proofreading tips to ensure clarity and correctness:.

• Acknowledging the Professor's Busy Schedule:

Reinforcing the Importance of Patience in the Process:

Download the email the template here:.

Embarking on a Ph.D. journey is akin to stepping onto a scholarly odyssey, and the first email to a prospective supervisor serves as the compass. It’s not merely an introduction; it’s the key to unlocking doors to academic mentorship and research collaboration. This email lays the foundation for what could be a transformative alliance in the pursuit of knowledge.

In the realm of academia, where ideas are exchanged as currency, a generic email won’t suffice. A well-crafted and personalized message not only demonstrates your genuine interest but also reflects your commitment to excellence. It’s the difference between a fleeting acknowledgement and a memorable introduction that resonates with a potential mentor.

Approaching a prospective Ph.D. supervisor demands a delicate balance of professionalism and respect. This initial email is your opportunity to showcase not only your academic aptitude but also your interpersonal skills. Remember, you’re not just presenting yourself as a potential researcher; you’re extending a courteous invitation for collaboration.

The subject line is the gateway to your email – it’s the first impression your prospective supervisor will have of your communication. In a crowded inbox, a compelling and relevant subject line is your beacon, guiding your email out of the sea of messages and into the forefront of the recipient’s attention.

Provide actionable tips for crafting a subject line that stands out. Here are some examples:

• Be Specific and Concise: “Inquiry Regarding Potential Ph.D. Supervision Opportunity”
• Highlight Your Connection: “Admired Your Research on [Specific Topic] – Seeking PhD Guidance”
• Express Enthusiasm: “Passionate Prospect Seeking Research Adventure Under Your Guidance”
• Include Your Name: “John Doe’s Inquiry: Exploring PhD Opportunities in [Field]”
• Avoid Ambiguity: “Ph.D. Application Inquiry – [Your Full Name]”

By incorporating these elements into your subject line, you’re not only conveying professionalism but also giving the recipient a clear understanding of the purpose of your email.

When addressing a potential PhD supervisor, the use of the correct title and surname is not just a matter of etiquette; it’s a demonstration of your respect for their position and accomplishments. Instead of a generic “Dear Professor,” consider addressing them as “Dear Dr. [Last Name]” or as per any specific preference they may have indicated.

In this section, you have the opportunity to present yourself as more than just a name in an email signature. Start with a succinct introduction that includes your current academic status, major field of study, and any relevant academic achievements. For instance, “I am currently completing my master’s degree in [Your Field] at [Your University], where my research has focused on [Brief Description of Your Research]. My academic journey has equipped me with a solid foundation in [Key Academic Areas], and I am eager to further explore these domains through doctoral studies.”

Beyond stating your academic credentials, take a moment to articulate why you are specifically reaching out to this particular professor. Showcase your awareness of their work and its impact on your academic interests. An example could be, “Having delved into your published works, particularly your groundbreaking research on [Specific Topic], I am captivated by the potential intersections between my academic background and your ongoing projects. Your innovative approach to [Highlighted Concept] aligns seamlessly with my research aspirations, and I am eager to explore potential collaboration under your guidance.”

This section is your opportunity to communicate your enthusiasm for the professor’s research. Instead of generic statements, articulate your genuine interest. For instance, “I am writing to express my deep interest in your research, particularly in the area of [Specific Research Area]. The innovative approaches and groundbreaking contributions your work has made in [Highlighted Concept] have greatly inspired my academic pursuits. Your dedication to pushing the boundaries of knowledge in this field aligns seamlessly with my own passion for [Related Academic Interest], and I am eager to contribute to the ongoing dialogue under your mentorship.”

Going beyond a general expression of interest, take a moment to highlight specific aspects of the professor’s work that have resonated with you. This could include mentioning specific papers, projects, or methodologies. An example could be, “Your recent paper on [Paper Title] caught my attention, especially the way you navigated [Highlighted Methodology]. This innovative approach aligns perfectly with my own research interests, and I am eager to explore potential areas of collaboration or build upon this methodology in my doctoral studies.”

Explaining Your Fit

Aligning your academic and research background with the professor’s work:.

This section serves as the bridge between your academic journey and the professor’s research landscape. Instead of generic statements, explicitly align your academic and research background with the professor’s work.

For instance, “Given my academic journey in [Your Field], I have cultivated a deep interest in [Specific Academic Area], an interest that resonates strongly with your impactful work in [Professor’s Research Area]. My thesis on [Your Thesis Topic] allowed me to delve into similar methodologies and challenges as those addressed in your research on [Professor’s Research Topic]. This alignment not only fuels my passion for the subject but also positions me as a candidate eager to contribute meaningfully to your ongoing research endeavours.”

Beyond academic alignment, it’s crucial to showcase the practical skills and experiences that make you a valuable addition to the research team.

For instance, “My hands-on experience with [Specific Research Technique] during my internship at [Relevant Institution] has equipped me with the skills necessary to contribute effectively to your ongoing project on [Professor’s Project]. Additionally, my role as [Your Role] at [Previous Institution] allowed me to refine my [Highlight Relevant Skills], skills that I believe would complement your research group’s objectives. I am excited about the prospect of bringing these skills to your team and contributing to the innovative work for which your research group is renowned.”

Stating Your Purpose

This section marks the transition from expressing interest to explicitly stating your intent. Be straightforward and unambiguous in expressing your interest in pursuing a Ph.D. under the professor’s guidance. For instance, “I am writing to express my keen interest in joining your research group for a Ph.D. program. Your work has been a guiding light in my academic journey, and I am enthusiastic about the prospect of contributing to and learning from your esteemed research team. I am particularly interested in exploring potential Ph.D. opportunities under your mentorship and would be grateful for any guidance you can provide regarding the application process.”

Don’t leave room for assumptions; directly inquire about the professor’s availability for new Ph.D. students. For instance, “I understand the demands on your time, and I appreciate your consideration of my inquiry. Before proceeding further, I would like to inquire about the current status of Ph.D. opportunities within your research group. Are you currently accepting new Ph.D. students, and if so, what steps should I follow in the application process? Your guidance in this matter would be immensely valuable as I navigate this next step in my academic journey.”

Attaching Your CV and Academic Transcript

This section serves as the backbone of your introduction. Attachments such as your CV and academic transcript provide a detailed snapshot of your academic journey. Emphasize the importance of these documents in showcasing your qualifications. For instance, “To provide you with a comprehensive overview of my academic background and research experiences, I have attached my Curriculum Vitae (CV) and academic transcript. These documents encapsulate my educational journey, research endeavours, and relevant skills. I believe they will offer you valuable insights into my qualifications and suitability for potential Ph.D. opportunities within your research group.”

Ensure that your attachments are presented in a clean and organized manner. Consider guidance such as, “For your convenience, I have attached the documents in PDF format to maintain formatting integrity. The CV provides an overview of my academic and professional background, while the academic transcript offers a detailed account of my coursework and performance. I hope this format is suitable; however, please let me know if you prefer an alternative format or if additional documentation would assist you in evaluating my candidacy.”

This section is your opportunity to showcase humility and eagerness to be a part of the academic community. Express your passion for learning and collaboration. For instance, “I am eager to embark on this Ph.D. journey not only to deepen my understanding of [Your Field] but also to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing research in your esteemed research group. Your mentorship is invaluable, and I am excited about the prospect of learning from your wealth of experience. I look forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you and fellow researchers in pushing the boundaries of knowledge.”

Demonstrate your flexibility and openness to aligning your research goals with the professor’s expertise. Communicate this willingness clearly. For instance, “While my academic background has led me to develop a keen interest in [Your Field], I am open to tailoring my research focus to align with the ongoing projects within your research group. I believe that collaborative exploration of potential research directions will not only enrich my doctoral experience but also contribute meaningfully to the objectives of your research team. I would be honoured to discuss potential research directions further and explore how my skills and interests can complement the goals of your research group.”

Highlighting Your Motivation

This section allows you to offer a glimpse into your personal motivations, driving your pursuit of a Ph.D. Share these motivations sincerely. For instance, “The decision to pursue a Ph.D. is deeply rooted in my passion for [Your Field]. My experiences have fueled a desire to not only contribute to the academic discourse but also to address real-world challenges in this field. The prospect of conducting research under your mentorship aligns perfectly with my aspiration to make meaningful contributions to the ongoing conversations in [Your Field].”

Connecting Your Aspirations with the Professor’s Expertise:

Demonstrate how your personal aspirations align with the professor’s expertise, creating a synergy that benefits both parties. For instance, “Your expertise in [Professor’s Expertise] strongly resonates with my long-term goal of [Your Aspiration]. I am motivated not only to deepen my understanding of [Your Field] but also to leverage that knowledge to [Specific Aspiration or Contribution]. Your mentorship, rooted in your extensive work on [Professor’s Research Area], positions you as the ideal guide to help me translate my aspirations into impactful research outcomes.”

Proposing a Follow-up

This section marks the transition from an introductory email to a potential dialogue. Suggest a follow-up action that takes the conversation beyond email. For instance, “I would be delighted to discuss my potential Ph.D. journey further. If convenient, may I propose a meeting or a brief call at your earliest convenience? I believe that a more in-depth conversation would provide a valuable opportunity for me to learn more about your research group and for us to explore potential areas of collaboration.”

Conclude the email by expressing your openness to ongoing dialogue. For instance, “I am open to any additional information or documentation you may require and am eager to continue our conversation. Your insights and guidance are highly valuable to me, and I look forward to the possibility of further discussing how I can contribute to the vibrant research community within your department.”

Being Professional

Maintaining a professional tone in your communication is paramount when reaching out to a prospective Ph.D. supervisor. This sets the stage for a respectful and constructive interaction. Instead of overly casual language, opt for a tone that reflects your seriousness and respect for the professor’s position. For instance, “In the interest of maintaining a professional and respectful dialogue, I am writing to express my interest in pursuing a Ph.D. under your guidance.”

Proofreading is an essential step to ensure your email is clear, error-free, and leaves a lasting impression. Consider these tips:

• Clarity: Read your email from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with your background. Ensure that your message is clear and easily understood.
• Grammar and Spelling: Use tools like spell-check, but also manually review your email for grammatical errors. Incorrect grammar can detract from the professionalism of your communication.
• Conciseness: Ensure your email is concise and to the point. Professors often have limited time, so brevity while maintaining completeness is key.
• Formality: Check that your salutation, closing, and overall language maintain a level of formality appropriate for academic communication.
• Relevance: Confirm that all content in your email, including attachments, is relevant to the purpose of reaching out to the prospective supervisor.

By investing time in careful proofreading, you not only demonstrate attention to detail but also present yourself as a candidate who values precision in academic communication.

Respecting Their Time

In academia, where time is a precious commodity, brevity and clarity in communication are invaluable. Instead of lengthy paragraphs, aim for concise and focused messaging. For instance, “I understand the demands on your schedule and appreciate your time. In the interest of brevity, I would like to express my interest in joining your research group for a Ph.D. program. Attached is my CV and academic transcript for your review. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss potential collaboration further.”

Acknowledging the Professor’s Busy Schedule:

Open your email with a polite acknowledgement of the professor’s busy schedule to set the tone for respectful interaction. For instance, “I hope this email finds you well amidst your demanding schedule. I understand the commitments that come with your esteemed position, and I truly appreciate your time in considering my inquiry about potential Ph.D. opportunities within your research group.”

Follow-Up Etiquette

It’s not uncommon for busy academics to have overflowing inboxes. If you haven’t received a response after a reasonable period, consider sending a polite follow-up. For instance, “I hope this message finds you well. I understand that you have a busy schedule, and I appreciate your time in considering my initial inquiry about potential Ph.D. opportunities. I wanted to follow up and express my continued interest in joining your research group. If there’s additional information you require from my end or if you would prefer to schedule a time for a brief discussion, please let me know. I understand your commitments and would be grateful for any guidance you can provide.”

Patience is key when reaching out to prospective Ph.D. supervisors. Reinforce this to your readers by stating, “In the realm of academia, timelines can vary, and professors may have numerous commitments demanding their attention. While it’s natural to be eager for a response, practising patience is crucial. Allow for a reasonable window of time before considering a follow-up. Remember that the application and response process for Ph.D. opportunities can take time, and demonstrating patience is a testament to your understanding of the demands of academic life.”

Email Template Regarding Potential Ph.D. Supervision Opportunity

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Potential Ph.D. Supervision Opportunity

Dear Dr. [Last Name],

I hope this email finds you well amidst your academic commitments.

I am writing to express my sincere interest in joining your esteemed research group as a Ph.D. student. Having thoroughly explored your groundbreaking work in [Professor’s Research Area], I am captivated by the depth and innovation of your research contributions.

A little about myself: I am currently completing my master’s degree in [Your Field] at [Your University], where my research has focused on [Brief Description of Your Research]. My academic journey has equipped me with a solid foundation in [Key Academic Areas], and I am eager to further explore these domains through doctoral studies.

Your expertise in [Professor’s Expertise] strongly resonates with my long-term goal of [Your Aspiration]. I am motivated not only to deepen my understanding of [Your Field] but also to leverage that knowledge to [Specific Aspiration or Contribution]. Your mentorship, rooted in your extensive work on [Professor’s Research Area], positions you as the ideal guide to help me translate my aspirations into impactful research outcomes.

Enclosed, please find my Curriculum Vitae (CV) and academic transcript for your review. I hope these documents provide a comprehensive overview of my academic background and research experiences.

I understand the demands on your schedule and appreciate your time in considering my inquiry about potential Ph.D. opportunities within your research group. If there’s additional information you require from my end or if you would prefer to schedule a time for a brief discussion, please let me know. I am open to any further guidance you can provide.

Thank you for considering my application. I look forward to the possibility of contributing to the vibrant research community within your department and am excited about the potential for collaboration.

Warm regards,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Contact Information]

Please enter your details to download the Email template:

Unlock Exclusive Access to the PhD Navigator Tool – for a Streamlined Research Experience for FREE!

Dear fellow researchers,

If you are a PhD research scholar or planning to pursue PhD, I understand the value of time in your PhD journey. That’s why I have organized my blog posts related to PhD meticulously, categorizing more than 100 articles into various stages of PhD (from planning of PhD to careers after PhD).

You can get this tool ABSOLUTELY FREE , by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “Subscribe: PhD Navigator Tool-1.0” By subscribing not only will you gain free access to this invaluable tool, but you’ll also receive regular updates on this tool and our blog’s latest insights, tips, and resources tailored for researchers.

You can also visit my all articles related to PhD in my PhD Section . Of course, theses articles are in random order as I have written them whenever I got new ideas.

Happy researching!

Best regards,

Dr Vijay Rajpurohit

In the intricate journey of academia, the initial email to a prospective Ph.D. supervisor is not merely a formal introduction; it is the opening chord in a potential symphony of collaboration and scholarly exploration. As we navigate the art of crafting this pivotal communication, let us not forget that behind each email address is a world of dedication, expertise, and a commitment to advancing knowledge.

By meticulously weaving elements of professionalism, genuine interest, and humility into our messages, we create a tapestry that not only captures attention but resonates with the spirit of academic curiosity. As we embark on the journey of seeking mentorship, let this be a reminder that each email is an opportunity—a bridge to connect with a mentor, a gateway to academic camaraderie, and a testament to the passion that fuels the pursuit of knowledge. May your emails be not just correspondences but stepping stones toward meaningful academic alliances.

Upcoming Events

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

Recent Posts

• These Institutes Offer Remote Research/Academic Internships
• How to Include Your Journal in the UGC-CARE List? A Guide for Publishers
• Understanding UGC CARE Journals: A Comprehensive Guide
• Top 10 AI-Based Research Paper Abstract Generators
• EditPad Research Title Generator: Is It Helpful to Create a Title for Your Research?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Arts and Humanities
• Health sciences
• Science and Engineering
• Future international student
• International student
• Doctoral Candidate

The co-supervision doctorate

A co-supervision doctorate allows a young researcher to prepare a PhD under the joint supervision of at least two thesis directors, one from a French university, the other(s) from a foreign university. 

Published on 16/06/2020 - Updated on 9/12/2022

In accordance with Article 20 of the Order of 25 June 2016 , this international co-supervision makes it possible, after a single defence, to simultaneously obtain the degree of French doctor and the equivalent foreign degree.

The conditions of eligibility for a co-supervision doctorate are as follows: 

• The doctoral candidate must enrol simultaneously in the different higher education institutions to prepare his or her doctorate. 
• It is supervised by at least two thesis directors, one in each of the two institutions. 
• He or she must stay alternately in the different institutions during the doctoral training. The length of the stay must be at least one year in one of the universities. The stay may be split.

A co-supervision agreement negotiated between the institutions sets out the specifications of the co-supervision: including the mobility period, defence rules, payment of registration fees and intellectual property rights.

At Sorbonne University, the candidate must apply to the doctoral school to set such a co-supervision in motion. Then, in each institution, a dedicated department is in charge of drafting the co-supervision agreement. 

The co-supervision agreement must be put in place during the first year of the doctorate. Doctoral candidates who wish to convert their simple doctorate into a co-supervision doctorate will be able to apply for a change but only during the first year of their doctoral training.

Terms and conditions of co-supervision:

• Applicants that wish to complete a co-supervision doctorate in the field of science and engineering
• Applicants that would like to complete a co-supervision doctorate in the arts

ERC-funded PhD position in Star and Planet formation to study the evolution of the protoplanetary dust and the exploitation of data from a microwave analogy experiment (M/F))

Job Information

Offer description.

The Institute of Planetology & Astrophysics of Grenoble (IPAG) is a Joint Research Unit of 150 people under the supervision of the CNRS and the University of Grenoble Alpes. IPAG will provide all the necessary resources (office, workstation, scientific environment) to carry out this work within the dynamic Odyssey team. The candidate will join our research group working on the Dust2Planet (From Dust to Planets) project led by François Ménard.

We are offering one PhD position in the field of protoplanetary disks, and Star and Planet Formation, in particular by studying the evolution of the dust and the exploitation of data from a microwave analogy experiment. The PhD candidate will join project ”Dust2Planets” at IPAG (From Dust to Planets: A Novel Approach to Constrain Dust Growth and the Planet Forming Zone in Disks). The project is led by François Ménard and funded by the European Research Council (ERC) via a 5-yr ERC-Advanced grant. The goal of Dust2Planets is to study the processes at work during the early stages of planet formation, in particular by studying the evolution of protoplanetary disks and the evolution of the dust they contain. The selected candidate will pursue his formation and studies in the field of dust properties and/or dust evolution in young disks within the Dust2Planets team. Active collaboration with Dust2Planets and Odyssey team members will be fostered, under the direct supervision of François Ménard. The IPAG hosts seven research groups working on all aspects of star and planet formation. They are strongly involved in cutting-edgetheoretical, numerical, and observational programmes.

Requirements

Additional information.

To apply, an M2, MSc or equivalent in physics, astronomy or equivalent, is required. Previous experience in the study of protoplanetary disks would be useful but is not mandatory. The PhD position will be appointed for 3 year. Positions can start as early as October 1st, 2024. The position includes full social benefits. There is a budget for the missions. Candidates must apply on the CNRS Job Portal by submitting their CV (2 pages max) and cover letter including a statement of their interests and research experience. Inquiries about the PhD positions and project Dust2Planets in general should be sent before June 25, 2024 to [email protected] to the attention of: François Ménard.

Work Location(s)

Where to apply.