phd supervisor not expert

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.

• Choosing a PhD Supervisor

Written by Ben Taylor

Your PhD supervisor will play a vital part in your PhD, providing you with the mentorship, feedback and support you need to succeed. That’s why it’s so important to spend time finding a supervisor for your PhD who will be a great fit for you and your project.

The role of a PhD supervisor is to use their own experience and expertise to support you throughout your project. A good supervisor will show interest in your project and provide regular feedback on your work.

Each person’s supervision experience depends on their university, department and personal preferences. While it’s expected you’ll meet with your supervisor regularly, this might mean weekly for some, and monthly for others. It’s important to make sure both you and your supervisor’s expectations match so that you can receive the best possible support.

This page covers how to find and choose a PhD supervisor. We’ve also explained the qualities of a good PhD supervisor.

How to find a PhD supervisor

How you'll find your PhD supervisor depends on whether you’re applying for an advertised project or putting forward your own research proposal .

If you’re applying for an advertised project , the process of finding a supervisor is simple. Usually they’ll be the academic who has devised the project in question, and the person you’ll be making your application to.

It’s still important to do your homework. Make sure you’re clued up on their research and able to ask sensible, specific questions about the project in your initial contact . Advertised projects – often with funding already attached – are much more common in STEM subjects , although you may still come across them in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences too.

If you’re proposing your own PhD project , you’ll need to do some investigation to find an academic whose research interests align with your own. The rest of this section will give you several pointers how you can do this.

Finding an expert in your field

First of all, you’ll want to have at least a rough idea of what you want your PhD topic to be. This is so that you can begin to narrow down prospective supervisors by research interests and focus on those that have expertise in your area.

This doesn’t necessarily have to mean finishing the final draft of your research proposal (that comes a little later), but you’ll need to have a decent plan of what you want to achieve with your PhD research so that you know you’re getting in touch with the right people (and not wasting your time – or theirs!).

There are several ways to do this:

• Browsing the academic staff section of a university department website – This is where lecturers and professors will list their research interests, publications and the areas in which they’re keen to supervise PhD students. Some websites allow you to filter and search by interest. In other cases you’ll need to check these profiles individually – time-consuming but worth it.
• Speaking to the academics at your current (or previous) university – These people will likely know exactly who the experts in your field are. They’ll probably even be experts themselves! If you already have a friendly relationship with a personal tutor or Masters dissertation supervisor, it’ll be good to have an informal chat about who they think could be a good fit for your work.
• Checking who has been prolific in your research area – There are probably a few names that have come up repeatedly in your previous work at postgraduate level. It’s worth scouring bibliographies and chapters to learn more about the academics behind them. Read up on their current work and find out whether they’re accepting supervisees.
• Scientific databases – If you’re a STEM student, scientific databases will give you lots of data with which to refine your search. This allows you to look for the most cited articles and thus find out who the leading researchers are.

Once you’ve done your research and have a good idea of the academic landscape around your proposed PhD topic, you should make a shortlist of around three potential supervisors to contact. Now is the time to make sure you’re really clued up on their academic background and current projects, so that you can make an excellent first impression when you get in touch with them.

Who can supervise a PhD student?

An academic doesn’t necessarily need to hold a senior role in order to supervise a PhD student. Junior research fellows and assistant professors often act as supervisors when their work is particularly relevant, as well as more senior professors and lecturers.

However, universities will have different policies on who exactly can supervise (and in what circumstances). It’s best to do your research if you think you’ve found the perfect supervisor candidate but they aren’t a lecturer.

Contacting a PhD supervisor

Our guide to contacting a PhD supervisor has everything you need to know about first contact, with tips on preparation, email etiquette, making a good impression and questions to ask.

How to choose a PhD supervisor

If you’re in a lucky enough position that you have two or more prospective supervisors that are happy to oversee your PhD project, there are several factors that you might consider when making your final decision:

• What career stage your potential supervisor is at – An academic at the beginning of their career might have fewer professional commitments and therefore more time to supervise you. A senior lecturer or professor, meanwhile, may have an extremely busy professional life – but this could be counterbalanced by their expertise and experience.
• Other supervisees – Find out what kind of work the supervisor has previously been (or is currently) involved in. You can normally see a list of current research students on a department website, for example. Are they engaged in similar work to you? See if you can find out what path previous supervisees took after finishing their PhD. Maybe stayed in the department or took up postdoc positions.
• University facilities – If your choices of supervisor are at different universities, weigh up the benefits that might come with the specialist facilities and resources available at each institution.
• University department – Depending on your preferences, you may want to work within a small, specialised department or a larger team that allows more scope for cross-disciplinary collaboration.

If you’re able to meet your potential supervisor – either in-person or via video call – that can also be a great way of gauging their personality and your chemistry. You’re going to be working with them for a minimum of three years, so you want to make sure you’re going to get on with them!

What are the qualities of a good PhD supervisor?

Now that you know how to find a supervisor for your project, you might be wondering about how to choose a good PhD supervisor. You’ll be spending a lot of time with them during your PhD, so it pays to understand what to look out for in terms of personality traits, expertise and experience.

#1 Substantial research expertise

The ideal PhD supervisor will be an expert in their academic field, with a wealth of publications, articles, chapters and books. They’ll also have a background in organising and presenting at conference events.

It’s also important that their expertise is up-to-date. You should look for evidence that they’re currently active in your research area, with recent publications and conference attendance. The quality of these publications is also important – prominent, peer-reviewed journals are ideal. If your prospective supervisor has lots of citations, that’s also a great sign.

#2 Clear about their career plans

After you’ve made initial contact with a supervisor, it’s good to get an idea of where they see their own future. If they’re planning to retire, go on sabbatical or change institution, that could cause problems for your PhD later down the line. It goes without saying that you want a supervisor who is going to stick around for the duration of your PhD.

#3 Previous experience as a PhD supervisor

Ideally, a supervisor should have a long track record of supervising PhD candidates, with plenty of experience helping them through the ups and downs that come with research. It’s well worth investigating how previous supervisees have done under the tutelage of your prospective supervisor – university websites, ResearchGate and LinkedIn are the best places to do this.

If you’re able to visit the department in person, speak to current PhD students to get an idea of how they’re getting on.

#4 Personality

It can be difficult to judge someone’s personality on the basis of emails, a video call or a chat over coffee, but try to decide if your potential supervisor is a good match for you on a personal level.

Do they seem enthusiastic about your work and inspiring about their own interests? Will they make a good mentor when it comes down to the hard work of completing your PhD? Are they more of a hands-on or hands-off supervisor?

#5 Organisational skills

Excellent organisational skills – both on your part and your supervisor’s part – are key to succeeding at a PhD. You’ll want a supervisor that is clear with their expectations, giving you deadlines where necessary but also having some flexibility that takes your personal situation into account.

You also want a supervisor who is easy to get hold of for feedback and advice, with regular office hours. Many academics are extremely busy, but you should expect your supervisor to find time for you where necessary.

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

There are a variety of reasons why someone may want or need to change their PhD supervisor. Issues with the working relationship or other circumstances could make a supervisor unable to provide proper support . Unfortunately these things happen, but universities are well equipped to help PhD students in these instances.

Usually PhD students wishing to change supervisors should contact their departmental head of postgraduate study to discuss the situation. They will then advise on the best course of action to take. If there is an available academic in the department with the right expertise for your project, then they will be assigned as your new supervisor. Otherwise, you may have to consider transferring to another university.

PhD supervisor guide

If you want to find out more about what it's like to work with a PhD supervisor, we've written a guide on what to expect from your PhD supervisor . Then, head over to our course listings where you can find information on interesting courses and their academic supervisors.

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

You may also like....

We've answered some of the most frequently asked questions about PhDs, covering course types, applications, funding and the benefits of further study.

Getting ready to apply for a PhD? Our guides explain research proposals, references and entry tests for doctoral programmes.

Understand what a successful PhD research proposal needs to include and how to go about writing one for your project application.

Our guide explains how to contact a potential PhD supervisor to discuss your proposal or ideas with them before applying.

A checklist of the things you'll need to do when making an international PhD application, from meeting the entry requirements to sorting out your visa.

What documents you need for a complete study abroad application, what they are and what they should and should not include.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

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

Select your nearest city

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

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

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

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

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

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

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

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.

In Finland, all new PhD holders are given a traditional Doctoral Hat and Doctoral Sword during a Conferment Ceremony, symbolising the freedom of research.

Learn more about using cloud storage effectively, video conferencing calling, good note-taking solutions and online calendar and task management options.

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

Browse PhDs Now

A concept paper is a short document written by a researcher before starting their research project, explaining what the study is about, why it is needed and the methods that will be used.

The Thurstone Scale is used to quantify the attitudes of people being surveyed, using a format of ‘agree-disagree’ statements.

Dr Morrow gained his MD-PhD in Neuroscience from the University of Michigan. He now splits his time between providing clinical care to patients through the University of Michigan and research relevant to addiction and several other psychiatric disorders.

Sam is a new PhD student at Teesside University. Her research is focussed on better understanding how writing poetry can help cancer survivors to work through mental and emotional issues.

Join Thousands of Students

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

Tress Academic

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

May 14, 2019 by Tress Academic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here are our five pillars of good PhD supervision:

1. Guidance

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

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

2. Expertise

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

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

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

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

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

4. Regular interaction

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

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

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

4.1. Supervisory meetings

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

4.2. Spontaneous encounters

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

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

5. Advice on progress

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

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

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

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

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

How good is your supervision?

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

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

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

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

Related resources:

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

More information: 

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

© 2019 Tress Academic

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

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

10 truths a PhD supervisor will never tell you

There are some important dos and don’ts to bear in mind when choosing someone to oversee your doctoral thesis, advises tara brabazon.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

My father used to tell a joke, over and over again. It was a classic outback Australian, Slim Dusty joke that – like the best dad jokes – I can’t remember. But I do recall the punchline. “Who called the cook a bastard?” To which the answer was, “Who called the bastard a cook?”

This riposte often comes to mind during discussions about doctoral supervision and candidature management. Discussions go on (and on and on) about quality, rigour, ethics and preparedness. Postgraduates are monitored, measured and ridiculed for their lack of readiness or their slow progress towards completion. But inconsistencies and problems with supervisors and supervision are marginalised. In response, I think of my father’s one-liner: Who called the supervisor a bastard? Who called the bastard a supervisor?

To my mind, I never received any satisfactory, effective or useful supervision for my doctorate, research master’s or two coursework master’s that contained sizeable dissertation components. I found the supervisors remote and odd. A couple of them tried to block the submission of the theses to my institution. Indeed, on three separate occasions in my career, academics informed me that if I submitted this thesis, it would fail. The results that followed these warnings were a master of arts passed with distinction, a master of education with first-class honours and a dean’s award, and a PhD passed without correction. I was left with the impression that these supervisors had no idea what they were doing. The worst supervisors share three unforgivable characteristics:

• They do not read your writing
• They never attend supervisory meetings
• They are selfish, career-obsessed bastards

I am now an experienced supervisor and examiner, but I still remember my own disappointments. For the doctoral students who follow, I want to activate and align these personal events with the candidatures I have managed since that time. Particularly, I wish to share with the next generation of academics some lessons that I have learned about supervisors.

Explore PhD and early career jobs

As a prospective PhD student, you are precious. Institutions want you – they gain funding, credibility and profile through your presence. Do not let them treat you like an inconvenient, incompetent fool. Do your research. Ask questions. Use these 10 truths to assist your decision.

1. The key predictor of a supervisor’s ability to guide a postgraduate to completion is a good record of having done so

Ensure that at least one member of your supervisory team is a very experienced supervisor. Anyone can be appointed to supervise. Very few have the ability, persistence, vision, respect and doggedness to move a diversity of students through the examination process. Ensure that the department and university you are considering assign supervisors on the basis of intellectual ability rather than available workload. Supervising students to completion is incredibly difficult. The final few months require complete commitment from both supervisor and postgraduate. Make sure that you are being guided by a supervisor who understands the nature of effective supervision and has proved it through successful completions.

2. You choose the supervisor. Do not let the institution overrule your choice

As a postgraduate who is about to dedicate three or four years to an institution, you have the right to select a supervisor with whom you feel comfortable. Yet increasingly, as the postgraduate bureaucracy in universities increases, administrators and managers “match” a prospective candidate with a supervisor. Do not let this happen. Do research on the available staff. Talk directly with individual academics. Ascertain their willingness to supervise you, and then inform the graduate centre or faculty graduate administrators of their commitment.

3. Stars are attractive but may be distant. Pick a well-regarded supervisor who does not spend too much time away

It may seem a tough, unusual or impossible task to find a supervisor who has a strong profile but rarely goes away on research leave or disappears to attend conferences. Postgraduates need to be supervised by people with an international reputation whose name carries weight when they write references. But they must not be jet-setting professors, frequently leaving the campus and missing supervisory meetings to advance their own career. They must be established and well known, but available to supervise you rather than continually declining your requests for meetings because they are travelling to Oslo, Luanda or Hong Kong.

4. Bureaucratic immunity is vital. Look for a supervisor who will protect you from ‘the system’

There is an excessive amount of university doctoral administration. I understand and welcome the value in checking the ethical expenditure of public money; a programme of study submitted in the first year and an annual progress report through the candidature will accomplish this task. But now we have to deliver milestone reports, public confirmations of candidature sessions, biannual progress reports, annual oral presentations of research and – in some universities – complete a form that must be signed off at the conclusion of every supervisory meeting.

Every moment a student is filling in a form is one less moment they are reading a book or article, or writing a key page in their doctorate. Time is finite. Bureaucracy is infinite. A good supervisor will protect you from the excesses of supervisory administration.

The irony of many graduate centres is that they initiate incredibly high demands on students and supervisors yet are incredibly lax during crucial periods of the candidature when a rapid administrative response is required. One of my postgraduates had to wait 16 months for a decision on her doctorate. Two examiners had returned timely reports and passed with minor corrections. The third academic, however, did not examine the thesis, did not submit any paperwork and did not respond to any communications. I sent email after email – made phone call after phone call – to the graduate centre trying to facilitate a resolution to this examination. Finally, after a rather intensive period of nagging, a decision was reached to accept the two reports and no longer wait for the third. The question remains – why did the graduate centre take 16 months to make this decision? If I had not phoned and emailed administrators, would they have forgotten about this student? A good supervisor must be an advocate for the postgraduate through the increasingly bureaucratised doctoral candidature.

5. Byline bandits abound. Study a potential supervisor’s work

Does your prospective supervisor write with PhD students? Good. Do they write almost exclusively with their PhD students? Not so good – in fact, alarm bells should start ringing. Supervision is a partnership. If your prospective supervisor appears to be adding his or her name to students’ publications and writing very little independently, be concerned. Some supervisors claim co-authorship of every publication written during the candidature. Do not think that this is right, assumed, proper or the default setting. The authorship of papers should be discussed. My rule is clear: if I write it, it is mine. If you write it, it is yours. If we write it together, we share the authorship. It is important that every postgraduate finishes the candidature with as many publications as possible. Ask supervisors how they will enhance and facilitate your research and publishing career. Remember, you are a PhD student. Your supervisor should assist you to become an independent scholar, not make you into their unpaid research assistant.

6. Be wary of co-supervisors

Most institutions insist on at least two supervisors for every student. This system was introduced not for scholarly reasons but to allay administrative fears. There is a concern that a supervisor might leave the institution, stranding the student, or that the supervisor and student might have a disagreement, again leaving the student without support.

These arguments are like grounding all aircraft because there are occasional crashes. Too often I see an academic “added” to the team to beef up his or her workload. I have been in a university meeting where research-active professors were “added” to a supervisory panel not because they were excellent supervisors (far from it) but rather because they needed to boost their profile for the research assessment exercise.

Certainly there are many occasions where a co‑supervisor is incredibly valuable, but this must be determined by their research contribution to the topic rather than by institutional convenience. I once supervised a fine thesis about Russian television. I had the expertise in television studies; a colleague held expertise in Russian studies and the Russian language. It was a great team. We met weekly as a group, with specialist meetings held with either of us as required to complete the doctorate. The candidate submitted in the minimum time.

At times, an inexperienced co-supervisor is added to a team to gain “experience”. That is, perhaps, understandable. But damage can be done to students through bad advice. I know of a disturbing case in which an inexperienced co-supervisor chose a relatively junior friend to examine a doctorate. Before the senior co-supervisor had been informed, this prospective external examiner had been approached and had agreed, and the paperwork had been submitted. Two years later, the candidate is still progressing with corrections. Each time he submits revisions that supposedly verify the concerns expressed during the oral examination, he is presented with another list because the inexperienced supervisor agreed to “corrections to the satisfaction of the examiner”. This problem was caused by an overconfident but inexperienced co-supervisor being added to the team and then going on to appoint an overconfident but inexperienced examiner.

Sometimes – in fact frequently – less is more. A strong relationship with a well-qualified, experienced and committed supervisor will ensure that the postgraduate will produce a strong thesis with minimum delay.

7. A supervisor who is active in the area of your doctorate can help to turbocharge your work

Occasionally students select a “name” rather than a “name in the field”. The appropriateness of a supervisor’s field of research is critical because it can save you considerable time. Supervisors who are reading, thinking and writing in the field can locate a gap in your scholarly literature and – at speed – provide you with five names to lift that section. A generalist will not be able to provide this service. As the length of candidatures – or more precisely the financial support for candidatures – shrinks and three years becomes the goal, your supervisor can save you time through sharing not only their experience but also their expertise.

8. A candidature that involves teaching can help to get a career off the ground

In Australia, teaching with your supervisor is often the default pattern, and it is a good one. In the UK, tutoring is less likely to emerge because of budgetary restraints. But a postgraduate who does not teach through the candidature is unprepared to assume a full-time teaching post. Many doctoral candidates are already academics and are returning to study. Others work in a diversity of professions and have no intention of taking a job in a university. Therefore, this “truth” is not relevant. But for those seeking a career in academia who intend to use the doctorate as a springboard, teaching experience is crucial. A postgraduate may see themselves as a serious researcher. But it is teaching that will get them their first post (and probably their second and third). The ultimate supervisor is also an outstanding teacher who will train their postgraduates in writing curricula, managing assessment and creating innovative learning moments in a classroom. None of these skills is required for or developed by a doctorate. You can be supervised well without these teaching experiences. However, if you have a choice, select the supervisor who can “add value” to your candidature.

One of my proudest moments emerged in a tutors’ meeting for my large first-year course at Murdoch University : creative industries. I apologised to my tutors for the hard work and low pay that was a characteristic of sessional university employment. Mike Kent – who is now Dr Mike Kent and a tenured lecturer in internet studies at Curtin University – stated that the pay was an extra. He was being trained to teach. That was the value from the process. I still think tutors should be paid more, but I valued – and value – Mike’s insight.

9. Weekly supervisory meetings are the best pattern

There are two realities of candidature management. First, the longer the candidature, the less likely you are to finish. Second, a postgraduate who suspends from a candidature is less likely to submit a doctorate.

The key attribute of students who finish is that they are passionately connected to their thesis and remain engaged with their research and their supervisor. I have always deployed weekly meetings as the best pattern for supervision to nurture this connection.

There are reasons for this. Some postgraduates lack time-management skills and would prefer to be partying, facebooking or tweeting, rather than reading, thinking and writing. If students know that written work is expected each week, and they have to sit in an office with a supervisor who is evaluating their work, that stress creates productive writing and research. So if a meeting is held on a Thursday, then on Tuesday a student panics and does some work. Yet if meetings are fortnightly, this stress-based productivity is halved. It is better to provide a tight accountability structure for students. Weekly meetings accomplish this task.

10. Invest your trust only in decent and reliable people who will repay it, not betray it

This truth may seem self-evident. But supervisors – like all academics – are people first. If the prospective supervisor needs a personality replacement, lacks the life skills to manage a trip to the supermarket or requires electronic tagging so that he (or she) does not sleep with the spouses of colleagues, then make another choice. Supervisors should be functional humans. They can be – and should be – quirky, imaginative and original. That non-standard thinking will assist your project. But if there is a whiff of social or sexual impropriety, or if there are challenges with personal hygiene, back away in a hurry. At times during your candidature you will have to rely on this person. You will be sobbing in their office. You will need to lean on them. You must have the belief that they can help you through a crisis and not manipulate you during a moment of vulnerability.

I knew a supervisor whose idea of supervision was a once-a-semester meeting in a bar where he would order three bottles of red wine and start drinking. The meeting ended when the wine finished. Another supervisor selected his postgraduates on the likelihood that the students would sleep with him. Yet another was so completely fixated by her version of feminism that all the doctorates completed under her supervision ended up looking incredibly similar. Any deviation from a particular political perspective would result in screaming matches in her office. This was not only unpleasant but destructive to the students’ careers.

The key truth and guiding principle is evident

Do not select a supervisor who needs you more than you need him or her. Gather information . Arm yourself with these 10 truths. Ask questions. Make a choice with insight, rather than respond – with gratitude – to the offer of a place or supervision.

Like what you’re reading? Get 8 issues of THE free with our PhD student and researcher special offer

Register to continue.

Why register?

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

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

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

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Essential PhD tips: 10 articles all doctoral students should read

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

Reader's comments (34)

You might also like.

Most PhD students with hidden disabilities ‘unhappy with support’

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

PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

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

‘Stringent’ oversight needed for private PhDs in Bangladesh

Quality regulation poses the biggest challenge as Bangladesh moves to expand PhD courses to private universities

Featured jobs

not getting on with supervisor

hiii I'm new to the forum, and kind of new to my phd (6 months on)...I have been noticing that my supervisor and I are quite different characters (she is very ambitious and career minded, i just want to do my research then see what happens...), with different outlooks relationships (she likes networking, i like meeting people). We get on on some levels, but i have come to realise that she talks and talks about what she thinks i should do, and hardly ever asks. I have not been very assertive. Anyways, today i had an email back from her which was a complete overaction ...no tact whatsoever. Sometimes I feel she treats me like I'm one of her children and that email completely showed it...Aaaargh. This is really bringing me down...2 and half years left! how can i survive? anyone had a bad experience with a supervisor which then got better?!!!

Sounds exactly like my supervisor too (and I'm very similar to you)! I think this is the difference between supervisor and student. If you move on to pursue an academic career, I think you may act like your supervisor at some point...

my advice - comply and get on with it. i've had two supervisors like that and asserting myself in my first resulted in their being prejudiced in assessing my first year report. i eventually did change supervisors, but the way i see it is that, you want your phd and the supersvisor also wants you to graduate. she has a phd and therefore has a clue on how to get you there. you can't both lead, so either you lead or she does. its not nice, but it is a compromise not worth the agony of battling with a supervisor.

Lulu - don't be afraid to change your supervisor - you're not very far in and already she is bringing you down - can you imagine another 2.5 years of shutting up and putting up?! And might this harm your output? Plenty of people change supervisors, and personality and other clashes are common. There'll be something along those lines in your departmental PhD handbook (as well as how to change sups etc.) Having said that, I have a horrible supervisor but I won't change as he is the only specialist in my methodology in the department, and his input is too useful to my research to get rid of him. If that wasn't the case I'd be out of there like a shot! So my overall advice is: If her input is worth the pain, then keep her. Otherwise - ditch her ASAP!!

That is tough. Often we wish we would get along with our supervisors on multiple levels, but this rarely happens. If she is motivated and good a networking, try to milk this for what it is worth. Just try to treat the PhD like a job, be professional and keep things at that with your supervisor. They are there for you to learn and gain tools from. It its no fun that you feel she treats you like a child, but something like this, while annoying, can just be laughed at. The most important is whether this super can help you in your research, help you make connections in your field, etc. If these factors are good, then it may be worth putting up with her personality, but just do not get walked over.

I tend to find a lot of academics have fairly limited social skills and you have to allow for that. Many also have a bizarre way of rating success, what constitutes a good outcome, and they way they would judge the importance of friends and family. I had an "eccentric" supervisor (who is no longer in academia due to internal politics), who would come up with some of the most random, odd and sometimes outright offensive things (including "People who don't go to university are all unwashed scum" "There are far too many Jews in our department"). I felt like Tim from The Office half the time having to listen to my supervisor being David Brent. I stopped fighting it after a while, and tried to survive by scanning his emails for anything helpful, and ignorning the rest. I learned to blank out anything derogatory against me, or some of his wilder allegations against others.

Thaaaanks..! Such useful words..cant't really change her, she is the onle 'expert' in the field in the dpt...i like the idea of laughing it off, or 'blocking it'. I think you are right, get on with it, after all, what I want is a Phd, not a bestfriend!

Jeez you sure you've not got my supervisr...she sounds just like mine!!! She is lovely as a person but so intimidating as a colleague. She keeps saying 'I was just like you but I had it knocked out of me!!!'...she scares the pants off me...BUT although I thought she was being harsh when she criticised me it is paying off as my writing has come on no end and I am also learning to handle criticism much better. So I would work on changing how you receive her comments rather than working on her comments per se. Also do remember that YOU are the only expert in YOUR field you can listen to their comments but u;ltimately you have control over what you take on board. xx

Awh...wich she was critisicing my work (well kind off... having said that, I'm handing in my first chunk this week!!!) It is more communication issues,and her not being courteous, understanding, diplomatic, open to discussion...she basically decided to press reply, not reply all to an email that my 2nd supervisor sent- regarding sth to do with me (obviously)...the rest is history!

Post your reply

Postgraduate Forum

Masters Degrees

PhD Opportunities

Postgraduate Forum Copyright ©2024 All rights reserved

PostgraduateForum Is a trading name of FindAUniversity Ltd FindAUniversity Ltd, 77 Sidney St, Sheffield, S1 4RG, UK. Tel +44 (0) 114 268 4940 Fax: +44 (0) 114 268 5766

Welcome to the world's leading Postgraduate Forum

An active and supportive community.

Support and advice from your peers.

Your postgraduate questions answered.

Use your experience to help others.

Sign Up to Postgraduate Forum

Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account

Login to your account

Enter your username below to login to your account

Reset password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password

An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.

or continue as guest

Postgrad Forum uses cookies to create a better experience for you

To ensure all features on our website work properly, your computer, tablet or mobile needs to accept cookies. Our cookies don’t store your personal information, but provide us with anonymous information about use of the website and help us recognise you so we can offer you services more relevant to you. For more information please read our privacy policy

Stack Exchange Network

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

Q&A for work

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

Unhelpful and Overoptimistic PhD Supervisor

I am currently in an unbeneficial situation with my PhD supervisor/advisor. At the beginning of my PhD, I've targeted non-top but reasonable venues for my papers and quickly succeeded with 3 publications. Since then, my supervisor has encouraged me to target top-10 Computer Science conferences or h-index > 100 journals for further papers. I've submitted 3 papers to such venues and have received 2 rejections and 1 major revision, which is not great, but better than 3 rejections.

In our regular meetings, my supervisor and I used to discuss the content of my papers. However, every since I started targeting top venues and trying to do research at the required level, my supervisor was clearly not able to follow/understand my work. This went so far that, now, during our regular meetings, 95% our time is spent by me (unavailingly) trying to explain my work to my supervisor. I don't expect my supervisor to understand my papers as good as I do, yet in my opinion there should at least be a certain minimum understanding. After all the reviewers at the top venues seemed to understand the paper quite well and gave me accurate feedback.

Regardless, my supervisor keeps pushing me to submit at top venues and over-optimistically states that my work will be accepted there. However, I typically know where my paper's flaws are, and I receive no help there from my supervisor. After submission, the (meta)-reviews stated precisely these flaws as main reason for rejection.

How do I get more qualified feedback on future manuscripts before submission? Changing supervisor is not really an option, since they are my employer and since my PhD is anyway soon complete.

• 25 Three rejections is not many. –  Anonymous Physicist Commented May 17, 2021 at 13:21
• 72 Congratulations. You're ready to graduate. –  user2705196 Commented May 17, 2021 at 13:35
• 18 Apart from the other answers: do consider that maybe your explanation skills can be improved. Usually your supervisor is not supposed to have all the details of the previous meeting in the head, so it is important that you have a good narration if you want somebody to follow. Also (I dont know if this applies), if you state something as fact, it better be fact (verified beyond doubt by your research). The first is difficult because you have everything in your head, but try to see your presentation from the other perspective. Summarize key findings. –  lalala Commented May 17, 2021 at 17:48
• 4 If you had there submitted three papers and gotten three accepts at first try, now that would be bad, as that would indicate that you could have (and thus should have) sent them to more selective venues and gotten a better publication out of the same work. –  Peteris Commented May 17, 2021 at 19:29
• 10 As a side note, consider using a more obscure name when talking about your supervisor online. I am 99% sure I found out who he is and it turns out I actually know him. Just sayin. –  cheersmate Commented May 18, 2021 at 8:19

3 Answers 3

Is your supervisor overly optimistic? At least not obviously so. Getting a major revision and two rejections is a 1/3 success rate. That is actually pretty good for a round of first submissions, especially to top venues. But in the end it's of course your choice where you submit your work, and if you don't plan on staying in academia, you may wish to be more pragmatic.

Is your supervisor unhelpful? At least not less helpful than other supervisors of advanced PhD students. It's not uncommon for PhD students to eventually surpass their supervisors with respect to their research topic. At some point, you become the foremost expert on your specialization. All your supervisor can then do is offer hands-off guidance and mentoring, which they seem to be doing by evaluating your papers on an abstract level and suggesting suitable venues.

How can you get better substantive feedback? I understand you also need substantive feedback that goes beyond soft guidance. Here are some sources:

• Submit early and often to respected journals to get feedback by reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their specialization, so the feedback will be more specific than what you seem to get from your supervisor. (You're already tapping this source, good.)
• Attend specialist workshops and conferences (especially if, like me, you're in a " journal field " where conferences are largely for work-in-progress).
• Approach selected specialists and ask them for feedback on one of your drafts. The worst that can happen is that they ignore you, but many people are surprisingly generous, and specialists are often interested in what people in their subfield are working on. As incentive, you could also offer to reciprocate. (Even if you feel you're not senior enough to offer them advice, there's often something you can do - be a discussant in a panel, read a draft for overall consistency etc.) And who knows - this might even lead to a cooperation.
• Share drafts with other students on your own level. Even if they don't have the specific expertise you are looking for, their feedback can improve your paper, and their misunderstandings can improve the clarity of your exposition (and thinking).
• Finally, you might also consider looking for a more specialist co-supervisor. I know of some graduate programs that even require a second supervisor that can be selected at a later time.

I really don’t understand what the problem is here. What are you’re career goals? If you want to work in industry just apply for jobs and graduate when you get one and stop worrying about more papers. If you want an academic job, then your advisor is right, you’re going to need to publish in top venues and you clearly weren’t being aggressive enough about where you were sending papers since they weren’t all rejected. It’s natural that a strong student who is ready to graduate is going to spend a lot of their meeting time explaining things to their advisor, so again it’s not obvious that there’s a problem there either. You may have already learned most of what you’ll learn from your current advisor, but that’s fine because you’re about to go do a postdoc with someone new. You’re ready to move on to the next stage of your career, so do that!

• 5 I agree that this is not an issue. Regarding explaining work to your advisor, this can help you publish in a higher impact venue, because a clear and concise exposition helps you to write a better paper. –  Dawn Commented May 17, 2021 at 14:14
• 2 Great point, Dawn. It’s possible that OP struggles at giving good explanations. If that’s the case, then they should focus some on improving their explanations, for example starting a student seminar and giving more talks. –  Noah Snyder Commented May 17, 2021 at 14:20
• 3 The question OP should remember that an adviser can not be all things and that an over reliance on the adviser at the expense of networking and branching out for other niches of support will only make a student frustrated with the adviser. My read is that the question OP should be doing a lot more networking at conferences. –  kwame Commented May 18, 2021 at 13:29
• Thank you for your answers/comments. I guess my main issue was that I was apparently not aware of how positive my situation actually is. I guess I will have to do more networking. –  mto_19 Commented May 19, 2021 at 5:08

After submission, the (meta)-reviews stated precisely these flaws as main reason for rejection.

So you know what was wrong with the article. Which is good because you understand what you are doing.

How do I get more qualified feedback on future manuscripts before submission?

Since you are one of the very few (if not the only one) who completely understands the topic, you have a great person to discuss these topics: yourself.

In software development, and IT in general, we have the rubber duck technique: you explain to a rubber duck what you are doing, speaking loudly. Since I do not have one handy, I have a dog who is enthusiastic about what I am saying (and it is annoying because he obviously does not understand so I have to do better), and a cat who is not cooperative and always seems surprised by what I am saying (so I have to explain better).

This works wonders to make sure that what you want to do is more or less consistent.

I am writing all this to say that research is sometimes a lonely journey - you can discuss with some people about general topics, but you are on your own when it comes to the tiny bump you are making to human knowledge in your specific field.

Do not underestimate your PhD advisor. They may help you with areas where they are good (administrative stuff, grants, teaching).

I had two supervisors because of the novelty of the work I was doing for my PhD. They were not helpful to my research because this was something nobody did before. They were extremely helpful in helping me to navigate the muddy waters of academia.

my PhD is anyway soon complete

As others stated: if you plan to leave academia afterwards, it does not matter at all. Nobody will ever ask you about your papers. You will be lucky if someone asks you about the topic of your thesis. Depending on the country, the PhD can be a great asset, or just a diploma like others.

• " Nobody will ever ask you about your papers" -- depends where you go in the industry. Most research labs/private research groups will ask aboutthem (although they might as well be considered an extension of academia). If said individual is working in a startup/company related to the field of their PhD that might matter too (ex: theoretical cs student going to a cs startup that needs algorithmic engineers might end up getting asked to explain "what did you actually do?"). –  Sidharth Ghoshal Commented Oct 19, 2021 at 1:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• Could an Alien decipher human languages using only comms traffic?
• Is there any reason to keep old checks?
• Horror movie that has a demon hand coming through a mirror
• UTF-8 characters in POSIX shell script *comments* - anything against it?
• Looking for a story that possibly started MYOB
• Finding equivalent resistance in a circuit in which 12 resistors are arranged in the edge of a cube
• How do lee waves form?
• Going around in circles
• Are there any precautions I should take if I plan on storing something very heavy near my foundation?
• Tool Storage Corrosion Risk
• What aspects define how present the garlic taste in an aglio e olio pasta becomes?
• Protocol Used by the \oldstylenums Command to Display Digits
• John, in his spaceship traveling at relativistic speed, is crossing the Milky Way in 500 years. How many supernovae explosions would he experience?
• Infinitary logics and the axiom of choice
• how do you read this chord?
• The usage of 'otherwise'
• What might cause an inner tube to "behave" flat in a tire?
• What symbolism or deeper meaning is conveyed by the statues encountered in "The Endless"?
• Will a nitro aryl resist an halogen exchange using nBuLi?
• Formal language Concatenation is a binary operation?
• What was Jessica and the Bene Gesserit's game plan if Paul failed the test?
• Relevance of RFC2228
• Starship IFT-4: whatever happened to the fin tip camera feed?
• How can you destroy a mage hand?

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit dedicated to PhDs.

My supervisor doesn’t understand what I am doing.

It is finally clear to me. They don’t actually know what I am doing, why I have been doing it, and what it could be good for. They have just admitted they see themselves as hand holding me to the finish. Barf.