thesis advisor definition

The process of selecting a dissertation adviser can be accomplished in a number of ways. The importance, however, of this process should not be understated. This relationship between adviser and advisee often can be the difference between completing or not completing the dissertation. This research study looked at the selection process of a dissertation adviser from both a theoretical as well as practical perspective in a fast-track three-year doctoral leadership program at a medium size university in the United States.The methodological approach utilized a single focus group along with follow-up discussion with doctoral students. Recommendations are offered as to ways of addressing the problem or disconnect in the adviser selection process.

The subject of selection of an adviser in a Ph.D. program has been examined as part of a variety of studies looking at doctoral education, with some of those studies concentrating on the role of the adviser (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Gardner, 2013; Jaeger, Sandman, & Kim, 2011; Joyce, 2016; Kim, 2007; Noy & Ray, 2012; Schlosser & Kahn, 2007­­) and other studies focusing on faculty members serving as mentors to doctoral students (Gearity &Mertz, 2012; Holley & Caldwell, 2012; Linden, Ohlin, & Brodin, 2013) and still other researchers looking to determine whether the title of adviser or mentor even matters when faculty support doctoral students (Brabazon, 2016; Titus & Ballou, 2011).

The focus of this paper is on examining what methods are used in the selection process and what might be the preferred method of choice for aspiring dissertation candidates. Hence, the research questions that this research seeks to answer are: Given that doctoral students in a fast-track, executive program in educational leadership are asked to select an adviser at the beginning of their second year of formal study, is this selection process flawed since most of these doctoral students appear to rely more on familiarity with members the doctoral faculty rather than more salient qualities of members the doctoral faculty? Also, can a framework be developed, supported by the literature, which can assist institutional development of a framework to assist in the successful pairing of doctoral students with supportive doctoral faculty? The importance of helping institutions refine this process is important, yet too often unrecognized when “fewer than half of faculty members report having policies or guides on advising doctoral students with only a quarter reporting having received any training in how to be an adviser” (Titus and Ballou, 2013, p. 1274).

Although on the surface the process of pairing doctoral students with faculty may seem both simple and somewhat harmless, it can be a very difficult and challenging experience for a doctoral student. As noted by Sangganjanavanich and Magnuson (2009), “just as doctoral students often learn how to write a dissertation by writing a dissertation, they may learn about the long-term implications of adviser selection during or after the selection process” (p. 195). Both doctoral faculty and doctoral students are asked to develop a unique relationship based on what could be very different styles of managing research, providing feedback and communication, and developing trust and understanding.

Other considerations might be faculty research agendas, background of experience, and assigned adviser roles. The increase in international doctoral students and the needs those students have adds additional variables, further complicating the process (Kim, 2016; Knox, Sokol, Schlosser, Inman, Nilsson, & Wang, 2013). This topic becomes increasingly important as new fast-track, three year executive programs continue to grow in higher education and as the traditional doctoral graduate student who teaches classes and is vested with the doctoral faculty has been replaced by the part-time doctoral student who holds a full-time position in the workforce. Part-time doctoral students have time and access-to-faculty restrictions that traditional doctoral programs of the past did not have, at least not to the extent of the fast-track doctoral programs of today (Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013).

One of the authors of this study directs an executive-type fast-track doctoral program in management and leadership and has done so for over ten years. As part of this study the researchers will include some of the problems and concerns he and candidates in the program have experienced related to the selection process of advisers. Too often the adviser selection process becomes a quick and arbitrary way of assigning advisers while meeting contractual teaching assignments. Based on interviews with many of the candidates and a gap in the related literature, it is the intent of this study to illuminate this issue for those interested in the adviser selection process. Recommendations will be made based on the data that might offer ways to improve the adviser selection process.

The importance of the dissertation adviser relationship is clearly recognized in the literature and can be summarized by Barbazon’s (2016) statement, “the most important decision a doctoral candidate makes is the selection of supervisor, because they can enable, assist, warn, frame and improve the topic” (p. 16). When discussing the development of doctoral students in Educational Administration programs, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, and Piert (2013) go beyond the students effort during doctoral work as a determining factor of student success, concluding that “competence, confidence and capacity to understand and utilize research depended on the educational administration students’ focus on building technical skills as well as program and faculty support structures” (p.270).

Holley and Caldwell (2012) further advance the importance of the institution’s responsibility in the success of doctoral student support adding, “the design and implementation of a successful doctoral mentoring program is dependent on several factors including … the administrative willingness to coordinate the initiative” (p.253). Stark (2013) held with the notion there is not a right or wrong way to select a dissertation adviser. At her institution, an initial interim adviser was in place until a permanent adviser would be named. This approach would seem to address the time element for selection, but really lacked the more practical needs of fast-track doctoral programs.

To illustrate, many fast-track executive-type doctoral programs have a pre-designed three-year window for completion with most frontloading research methods during year one followed by selection of the adviser and the start of the dissertation in the beginning of year two (Hineman & Semich, 2013, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013). Given the emphasis on content as a part of methods in year one, an initial interim adviser would not be feasible. Holman (2015) argued that funding as a part of research should be a consideration. However, funding is more associated with doctoral research that is more directed to traditional programs that are more longitudinal in nature.

One thing is certain, students must be a part of this selection process of their adviser (Phillips & Pugh, 2000, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013). Further, it is important that students have a working knowledge of the faculty who are available to oversee the dissertation and that those who are advising dissertations have both the time and expertise to work with a doctoral candidate. Herzig (2002) stated that the doctoral student relationships with their advisers are critical to student success and from the negative side, can be detrimental in terms of attrition. Stark (2013) focused more on the adviser-advisee relationship in terms of common interest with emphasis on serving as a professional future reference. Hence, this relationship is based on mutual interests relative to topic and method of research. Bieber and Worley (2006, 2010) looked more toward an apprenticeship model where the doctoral student served more in an apprentice role with a teaching mentor.

Collins, Holum, and Brown (1991) proposed the idea of a between student and adviser/mentor having four main aspects; , , , and . Content is what must be known to be able to do the work, methods are the ways students develop their craft, sequencing is the order of the coursework, and sociology relate to the social aspects of the learning environment. Cognitive apprenticeship is an approach that emphasizes the mentoring process in a master/apprentice relationship. Ghefali (2003) expanded the Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model to include six specific areas; , , , , , and n. Taking into consideration this expansion of the idea of cognitive apprenticeship might serve well as a means of connecting an experienced faculty member with an apprentice doctoral student (Hineman & Semich, 2013).

Scaffolding the various stages of the dissertation process and coaching students to adhere to rigorous research methods and modeling technical aspects of academic writing are components of an expanded perception of the cognitive apprentice model applied to doctoral education, as well as emphasizing the need for articulation and reflection during the dissertation process. This expansion of the cognitive apprenticeship model also helps to support the notion that additional mentors can also play a role in the form of committee members’ contribution to the dissertation process. In short, the dissertation is as much a learning process as it is a product which supports the notion that finding an effective faculty mentor/teacher may be important in selecting an adviser. As Barbazon (2016) states, “in many ways, doctoral education is configured through a series of intimate, intense series of tutorials that runs over three years” (p. 17).

Establishing a strong relationship between adviser and advisee is paramount in making the dissertation process work in any doctoral program. Zhao, Golde, and McKormick (2007) examined ways in which this strong relationship might occur. The dynamics of this relationship inevitably seemed to point toward the student selection process. In this case, doctoral students assume the responsibility for selecting an adviser who they feel most comfortable. Sounds logical, however, it may be that the choice is rooted in popularity among doctoral faculty or the actions of some faculty to actively recruit prospective doctoral students since many schools provide a stipend or course reduction for those faculty who supervise a doctoral dissertation. Valian (1999) suggested that if there is not a systematic process in place for adviser selection, this may lead to a number of issues. Bias among faculty, frustration among doctoral candidates, and scheduling irregularities in terms of course load are just a few that may surface.

It is also important to place the importance of the relationship between adviser and advisee is a unique, complex social system that is subject to constant change. As such, this research has identified actor-network theory devised by Michel Callon in 1982 as a means to further understand the complexity of the relationship. Actor-network theory is also a possible descriptive way of telling how “relations assemble or don’t” (Law, 2007, p. 2). In simple terms, the Actor-network theory looks at relations between individuals (actors) and things (dissertation) in a complex network.

An adviser or committee members who experienced frustration or issues within their own personal dissertation team network may manifest similar actions in other advisee-adviser relationships. This adviser-advisee relationship can also be subject to change through the number of actors who may serve as committee members and are evaluating student work, the impact of policy and standards as a part of the program, the possible travel limitations for meeting and library time, lack of knowledge of various technological tools and software that may be beneficial, and the competitive interactions between cohort members who are completing at various stages of their dissertation. In addition, in the fast-track, executive-type doctoral programs, most, if not all students, are working full-time jobs and many have family responsibilities. Thus, work and personal issues can interfere with how relationships can be subject to change in the program.

In summation, cognitive apprenticeship as a theory of advisee mentoring and Actor-network theory as a way of examining how relationships assemble or don’t assemble with advisers and advisees in the dissertation process are some of the theoretical underpinnings to a better understanding of the selection of a dissertation adviser. Much of the limited research supports student selection although some programs support administrative selection. Focus on approaches for adviser selection also varies and, in some cases, seem somewhat ambiguous.

This paper examines the selection process through two channels: the review of the rather limited amount of related literature, and through the lens of doctoral students directly involved in the dissertation adviser process. The various methods of adviser selection from the literature review show a convoluted array of choices that are employed by doctoral students. In short, the research supports the fact that the relationship between adviser and advisee is important and should be the choice of the student. However, there is little agreement primarily because most of the past research does not draw a distinction between a traditional doctoral program and a fast-track, executive type program.

Early discussions with a member of the research team who directs a fast-track doctoral leadership program made it apparent to the research team that most of the issues that surfaced during the second and third years of that program were somehow related to the adviser/student relationship. Therefore, this research study followed a qualitative approach using a preliminary focus group discussion focusing on adviser selection for the first year of the program and follow-up interview discussions with individual cohort members after the second year of the program. The intent was to ascertain how students selected an adviser and their reflections regarding the selection process. Denzin and Lincoln (2013) identify present day and future qualitative methodology use as more connected to the evidence-based social movement in the United States. In this case, doctoral students were queried as what qualities they were seeking in an adviser and later reflecting on whether their choice of advisers met their expectations. This was a form of narrative voice since it represented the thoughts and feelings of these doctoral participants. The interview protocol consisted of the following questions:

There were 63 doctoral student participants from three cohorts who participated in this research study. The group was comprised of a diverse group of students that included corporate trainers, teachers, principals, health professionals, and military personnel seeking the leadership terminal degree. Different ages, gender, race/ethnicity were also represented in these doctoral cohorts which has been typical in this program and other similar executive-type doctoral programs. Data were gathered during the monthly Saturday dissertation seminars, which serve as monthly support sessions for the dissertation process and for debriefing students in the program.

All second year students were given faculty profile sheets for the dissertation chair selection process in order to consider the following: courses taught by faculty member, number of dissertation advisements, research interests of faculty, faculty preference of methodology, special interests, and educational background (includes major, minor, and dissertation title). Three weeks after distribution of the forms, second year doctoral students and faculty have an opportunity to meet during an evening buffet dinner to discuss dissertation topics, research agendas, and other relevant information. Students then have the opportunity to meet with faculty or to correspond via e-mail or phone as a follow-up. A week later these doctoral students submit their choices for adviser and provide a prioritized list of three names which gives some degree of administrative latitude in the assignment area. If several students selected the same faculty member, there was some flexibility to assign faculty as committee members. Individual meetings with each doctoral candidate follow and adviser selection is discussed. The director of the program attempted to meet the request of each doctoral candidate and query each of them as to why they chose that faculty member as his or her adviser. In some cases students may be asked to take their second or third choice in this process to meet the faculty load requirements mentioned earlier.

During the second year and third year, there were monthly individual student conferences focused on student progress relative to the dissertation and the adviser/committee relationship. Students had the opportunity to reflect and share information from an individual perspective. It is from these meetings that complaints may surface about adviser communication.

The results of the student selection process with the 63 students were compiled as the final cohort completed all of the requirements for graduation. These recorded notes on all the preliminary group sessions were reviewed as well as the adviser selection sheets for three cohorts. Follow-up interviews were conducted with students during the next two years of formal study. This section will summarize the data from this process and report in a chronological listing categorized in three phases. The first session was the initial group (large focus group); the next involved two student conferences, and finally in the last year there were additional student conferences.

The initial phase of interviews started with each cohort at the end of the first year of coursework. This first year coursework was comprised mainly of research courses, a technology course, and a curriculum course. By frontloading the research courses, students are better prepared to understand and apply research methods. In the large group seminar, procedures were outlined for all candidates. Students were provided with information about what qualities (faculty research agendas, positive working relationships, mentoring styles, areas of expertise, time factors, and others) are important considerations. The question as to what were student interests, concerns, and expectations for an adviser followed. The responses fell into three distinct categories as shown below.

This initial phase obviously revealed a stronger emphasis on familiarity among faculty. To further clarify this point, the faculty chosen were those that taught mainly the research methods courses during the first year. Relationships developed among the faculty as did preferences toward methodological choices for the dissertation. The area from these cohorts was the research background and publications of the faculty. Since this Instructional Management/Leadership Ph.D. program serves educators, administrators, health professionals, military, corporate trainers, etc., an administrator would select a faculty member with an administrative background, or a health professional would select a faculty member with a background in the health profession. The last category was a candidate talking to other prior cohort members relative to selecting an adviser. This represented a lesser number, but was also different from the other two categories since it relied primarily on the perception of other people in the selection process. There were a limited number of students in each cohort who chose their adviser after interacting at the evening buffet dinner with doctoral teaching faculty and students, as depicted in the category of Other . Mainly, the discussion at the dinner with doctoral faculty focused on the dissertation process and the work with the adviser. This individual meeting provided an opportunity for each cohort member to express his/her progress in the program. It was stated by the director of the program that in his experience, coursework is seldom the problem of students having trouble in the program. It is usually an issue with the capstone project, the dissertation, or the dissertation process. It is worth noting the connection the connection here to a finding by Knox, Burkard, Janecek, Pruitt, Fuller, and Hill (2011):

We cannot assert causality in either direction (effect of relationship on dissertation; effect of dissertation on relationship) but also cannot ignore the pattern: positive dissertation experiences were characterized by good relationships between adviser and student; problematic dissertations were often characterized by poor relationships. (p. 65)

By the conclusion of the second year of formal study, cohort members had two full semesters to work with their dissertation adviser. Hence, the researchers looked at the follow-up with these same cohorts but conducted, as previously noted, individual meetings with cohort members. The objective was to ascertain if the students were making progress in the dissertation process with their advisers. In this IML Ph.D. program, during the Fall of the 2 nd year, each semester correlates with the chapters of the dissertation which serves as a timeline. For instance, the Fall semester would correlate with Chapter 1 (Introduction) of the dissertation. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) would correlate with Spring, 2 nd year, then Summer of the 3 rd year would correlate with Chapter 3 (Methodology). Chapter 4 (Results) would be in the Fall of the 3 rd year while Chapter 5 (Findings and Conclusions) would be in the Spring of the 3 rd year in the program. It should be noted that this represents a completion schedule that is not representative of all candidates in the program.

In the discussions with Cohort 8A/8B, the group who graduated in May of 2015, there was a common thread among the group. Even though over 40% had earlier comments in year two and year three about their work and relationships with their advisers, any concerns or issues were resolved when these students completed the dissertation enabling them to graduate. Almost 100% of the students recognized their adviser in the Acknowledgement page of the dissertation. So, any ill will or criticism that may have existed earlier in the relationship, dissipated when the students graduated. All the graduates felt that this was a learning experience and that they understood more about themselves and the process in general from this experience. In short, the importance of completion and subsequent graduation would overshadow any negative feelings between the student and adviser. This is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Cohort 8A/8B

In Cohort 9, the group had completed their second year with one year into the dissertation process. Students in this cohort were at various stages of their dissertation. Using the same meeting procedures as with Cohorts 8A and 8B, a researcher met with members of Cohort 9. The responses from this cohort were as follows in Table 3:

Table 3: Cohort 9

Once again, students voiced similar comments on the role of their advisers. Although less negative comments were made by this cohort, the nature of these comments would indicate much different sentiments from the beginning of year 2 until the end of the same year, at least by 30% of the cohort. As noted earlier, issues such as meeting time, expected quick responses on submitted papers, and perceived relationship problems between adviser and candidate were not considered by students in cohorts 8A/8B and cohort 9.

Finally, Cohort 10 selected advisers during the summer of 2015 for the IML Ph.D. program. As noted there are a total of 18 students in this cohort. The same process of providing biographical information on faculty followed by a meet and greet buffet dinner was standard introductory procedure. Given the time frame of less than two months, these students responded in a typical manner by choosing faculty they were familiar with from their coursework or faculty who most impressed them at the dinner buffet. After meeting with each candidate to give faculty adviser/committee assignments, this group, as others, was pleased to hear that they were able to secure the adviser of choice. They, like others, were delighted to begin the process of starting the dissertation.

Discussion, Findings, and Conclusions

From a review of the three cohorts, it was clear that all three groups similar to earlier cohorts in this program, based their choice of adviser primarily on familiarity and first meeting impressions from the buffet dinner event. Familiarity could be explained in terms of selecting a faculty member based on past coursework with that faculty member. In many cases, it was first year doctoral faculty or, in some cases, doctoral faculty who had previously had a student in an undergraduate or graduate course. In should be noted that a percentage of our students pursue the doctoral degree after completing the Instructional Management/Leadership master’s degree at our university. A few students based decisions on the background of the faculty member and that person’s research area while some talked with previous cohort members. Despite preliminary discussions with the cohort in term of the process and shared past commentary from other students in the program, these students were still not focused on what might be considered the most important attributes and qualities of an adviser in the dissertation relationship. In traditional programs, students many times have the opportunity to work more closely with faculty or, at least, have the opportunity to have completed coursework with the majority of doctoral faculty who would serve as advisers.

While the doctoral faculty have a wide range of backgrounds in leadership including military, government, education, and health care, there are limitations on the director that relate directly to the faculty contract. By our contract, each faculty member should be assigned at least one doctoral student and subsequently, would serve on two committees. There is flexibility relative to faculty having more than one student. In the past the mix of students noted earlier in the description of makeup and background of the program participants provided a level of variety for student choice. To illustrate, a public school principal would probably lean toward working with a faculty member who was a former superintendent of schools. We have others who been a part of the corporate, military, higher education, or health professions. However, in some cases, if there was imbalance or over representation in one area (professional background), this might also hamper the ability of students to choose an adviser in their specific field.

The major finding of this brief study was that there was a disconnect between the entry selection criteria, which was somewhat superficial, and the reality of what many of the students really needed in an adviser. Although personal characteristics may be initially important, the complexity of the dissertation adviser role cannot be minimized. During the writing of the dissertation, some students may need more prodding than others. Some may need more encouragement. This relationship should be shaped into a mentoring role as in cognitive apprenticeship where learning occurs through guided experience. Since all faculty advisers completed a dissertation, this can be both a discovery process and a teaching process as in the Actor-Network theory which adviser and advisee are networked to the degree that both adviser and advisee learn from one another. Advisers not only learn new material but also gain new ideas and insights into their own future research agenda. Other criteria described in the literature such as common research interests, time factors, dissertation experience, etc. all have relevance that certainly go beyond familiarity, preliminary first time meetings, and the experience of others. This study’s researchers suggest that the title of adviser-mentor be applied to faculty supporting the work of doctoral students in the program, so as to emphasize the role of faculty in the success of doctoral students.

Also, based on the responses from candidates and the related research, this study’s researchers propose the following specific recommendations as a way of addressing the adviser selection process. These recommendations are aligned with Ghefali’s (2003) expansion of Collins, Holum, and Brown’s (1991) Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model:

These recommendations are ways of defining a more substantive and research-supported approach of selecting an adviser. The alignment of this study’s recommendations to Ghefali’s (2003) expanded Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model provides adviser-mentors with a rationale for implementing those recommendations and perhaps a framework that can be generalized to similar programs.

The goal is to develop a strong, nurturing relationship between the adviser-mentor and the student. It goes beyond the simple - pick who you know or pick who impresses you approach that is too often chosen by students. It enables doctoral students to engage more frequently and in a more professional, academic relationship with a possible adviser-mentor. Better informing students early on in the process is obviously a preferred first step. These doctoral students will be able to make more informed decisions relative to choice. Faculty, on the other hand, will also have a better opportunity to connect with these doctoral students, especially those faculty who traditional taught courses in the second and third years of the program.

As Joyce (2016) creatively suggests to those wrestling with the improvement of doctoral programs and dissertation advising, “create a space where both parties can exist together as actors who jointly create knowledge for their profession” (p. 412). If we can follow that simple suggestion, along with the recommendations of this brief study, then the choice of door number one, two, or three may be much easier with greater residual benefit, especially for doctoral students participating in today’s fast-track doctoral programs.

Adams, Howard G. and Ram, Ashwin (1992). How to choose an adviser . April, 13, 2015. Retrieved online at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/faculty/ashwin/wisdom/how-to-chose-an-adviser.html

Barnes, B. & Austin, A. (2009). The role of doctoral advisers: A look at advising from the adviser’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33 , 297-315.

Bieber, J.P. and Worley, L.K. (2006, 2010). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate students’ perspectives . The Journal of Higher Education , 77 (6) 1009-1035.

Brabazon, T. (2016). Winter is coming: Doctoral supervision in the neoliberal university. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 3 (1).

Callon, M. (1982) Action Network Theory . http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm- binaries/5222_Ritzer__Entries_beginning_with_A__[1].pdf

Collins, A., Holum, A., and Brown, J.S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible . May 15, 2015. Article retrieved online.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2013). The landscape of qualitative research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

Gardner, S. (2013). The challenges of first-generation doctoral students. New Directions for Higher Education , 162 , 43-54.  

Gearity, B. & Mertz, N. (2012). From “bitch” to “mentor”: A doctoral student’s story of self-change and mentoring. The Qualitative Report , 17 , 1-27.

Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and the contextualization of learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online Learning , 4 .

Halse, C. & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79-92.

Herzig, A. H.(2002). Where have all the students gone? Participation of doctoral students in authentic activity as a necessary condition for persistence toward the Ph.D. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 50: 177-212.

Hineman, J. and Semich, G. (2013). Cognitive apprenticeship and the support of students in non-traiditional cohort-based doctoral education programs. Proceedings for the Society for Information Technology in Education Conference , March 25-29, 2013, New Orleans, LA.

Holley, K. & Caldwell, M. (2012). The challenges of designing and implementing a doctoral student mentoring program. Innovative Higher Education, 37 , 243-253.

Holman, Zachary C. (2002). Selecting the right Ph.D. adviser: A guide . Article retrieved online August 5, 2015. http://faculty.engineering.asu.edu/holman/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Choosing-an-adviser-v2-ZH.pdf

Jaeger, A., Sandman, L. & Kim, J. (2011). Advising graduate students doing community-engaged dissertation research: The adviser-advisee relationship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15 (4), 5-25.

Joyce, P. (2016). “The thing itself”: Using literary criticism techniques in teaching qualitative research through dissertation advising. Qualitative Social Work, 15 (3), 407-413.

Killeya, Mathew (2008). The Ph.D. journey: How to choose a good supervisor. New Scientist . Issue 2644, February 2008.

Kim, Y. (2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising. Journal of Research in International Education, 6 (2), 171-193.

Knox, S., Burkard, A., Janecek, J., Pruitt, N., Fuller, S. & Hill, C. (2011). Positive and problematic dissertation experiences: The faculty perspective. Counseling in Psychology Quarterly, 24 (1), 55-69.

Knox, S., Sokol, J., Schlosser, L., Inman, A., Nilsson, J. & Wang, Y. (2013). International advisees’ perspectives in the advising relationship in counseling psychology doctoral programs. International Perspectives in Psychology; Research, Practice, Consultation, 2 (1), 45-61

Law, J. (2007). Actor neywork theory and material semiotics . Article retrieved online April 27, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf

Linden, J., Ohlin, M. & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in Ph.D. education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 639-662.

Martinsuo, M. and Turkulainen, V. (2011). Personal commitment, support and progress in doctoral studies, Studies in Higher Education , 36 (1), 103-120.

Murakami-Ramhalo, E., Militello, M. & Piert, J. (2013). A view form within: How doctoral students in educational administration develop research knowledge and identity. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (2), 256-271.

Noy, S. & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisers: is there systematic disadavantage to mentorship? The Journal of Higher Education, 83 (6), 876-914.

Patterson, D. (2010). Your students are your legacy. Communication of the ACM, 52 (3), 30-33.

Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2000). How to get a Ph.D. : A handbook for students and their supervisors (3 rd ed.), Buckingham, UK; Open University Press.

Sangganjanavanich, V. & Magnuson, S. (2009). Counselor Education & Supervision, 48 , 194-203.

Schlosser, L. & Kahn, J. (2007). Dyadic perspectives on adviser-advisee relationships in counseling psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 211-217.

Stark, Miriam (2013). Choosing a dissertation or thesis/adviser mentor . Article retrieved online August 3, 2015. http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/graduate/agsa/choosing-adviser-mentor.pdf

Titus, S. & Ballou, J. (2011). Faculty members’ perceptions of advising versus mentoring: Does the name matter? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1267-1281.

Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zhao, C., Golde, C., & McKormick, A. (2007) More than a signature How adviser choice and adviser behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction . Journal of Further and Higher Education , 31 (3), 263-281.

Save Citation »    (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager)

Hineman, J. M., & Semich, G. (2017). "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal , 9 (03). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal 9.03 (2017). < http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588 >

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal 9 (03), http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

HINEMAN, J. M., & SEMICH, G. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal [Online], 9. Available: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

John M. Hineman graduated in 2011 with a PhD in Education from Robert Morris University .

George Semich , Ed.D., is the Director of the IML PhD Program at Robert Morris University .

From the Inquiries Journal Blog

Related reading, monthly newsletter signup.

The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog.

Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal

Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.

Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal 's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit

Latest in Education

What are you looking for, from our blog.

Inquiries Journal

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Roles and Responsibilities of a Research Advisor

• First Online: 15 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Robert S. Fleming 3 &
• Michelle Kowalsky 4  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

1033 Accesses

Rather than taking a journey alone, many travelers will decide to have a companion accompany them on their trip. This is often the case when one is embarking on a long trip or traveling to a destination to which they had not traveled before.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

Joyner, R. L., Rouse, W. A., & Glatthorn, A. A. (2013). Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Google Scholar  

Nygaard, L. (2017). Writing your master’s thesis: From A to Zen . Sage.

Parija, S. C., & Kate, V. (2018). Thesis writing for Master's and Ph.D. program . Singapore: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rohrer College of Business, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Robert S. Fleming

Campbell Library, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Michelle Kowalsky

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert S. Fleming .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Fleming, R.S., Kowalsky, M. (2021). Roles and Responsibilities of a Research Advisor. In: Survival Skills for Thesis and Dissertation Candidates. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80939-3_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80939-3_11

Published : 15 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-80938-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-80939-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Advice and Resources for Mathematics Graduate Students

Finding a Thesis Advisor

Choosing an advisor is a critical decision you will face in graduate school. It is normal to sometimes feel overwhelmed by this choice. Still, there are many specific things you can do to make the process less stressful. It is hard to give general advice, because every student is different. Nonetheless, in this document, I will give some “generic advice” culled from talking with students through thirty years of finding advisors. You should get advice from many people; much of it may be contradictory, so you’ll have to pick what fits you best. For this reason, my advice list is followed by further advice from some professors and (current and former) graduate students.

• You can change your mind: Remember that choosing an advisor is not a final, immutable decision. Sometimes it is important to get going with someone , even if your interests later change and you wind up working more closely with someone else.
• You are an individual: The right advisor for your office mate might be the wrong advisor for you. How much independence do you want/need? How much support do you want/need? Every advisor has their own style, just like every student does. Ask other students about their meetings with their advisors: do they meet every week? Do they have to find their own problems? Are they comfortable discussing a personal topic? Have they been offered financial support? Can they work on whatever they want or are they expected to focus on specific things suggested by their advisor? Different students may have different experiences with the same advisor, but it is good to hear as many perspectives as possible on the professors you are considering.
• Do not compare yourself to others:  Although it is wise to get working with someone as soon as possible, some students, especially those who have taken less math in college or who came to math late, will need more time to get through the QR process. This is fine. Do not panic just because peers have found an advisor and you haven’t.
• Choose the person, not the topic: Most students do better choosing a person (within some broad area, for example, algebra or PDEs, say) whose style of mathematical communication they like/understand/relate to/admire/respect on a personal level. Students who are already committed to a specific specialized topic may struggle to find an advisor willing to advise them on that subject, or may later decide that they don’t get along personally with the one faculty member in that speciality.
• Talk to professors : Coming to office hours, attending seminar and colloquium dinners, tea, other social events, are great ways to get to know potential mentors on a personal and mathematical level. Ask them what their students are working on. Ask them about their favorite theorem, or their favorite colloquium talk. Snoop around professor’s web pages, arxiv postings, math genealogy listing—all these can provide possible topics of conversation. Successful mathematicians have many mentors and contacts—not every conversation has to be a high stakes advisor-courting one.
• Take courses with homework:  Alpha and beta courses provide ready-made reasons to talk regularly to faculty. Usually, 500 and 600 level courses are more effective at getting students going in research than the enticing 700 level courses where the goal might be “exposure” to a highly specialized area rather than training in techniques.
• Talk to more people: The Chair of the Doctoral Committee or AIM Director are officially charged with helping you find an advisor. Ask for advice! Ask about specific people, styles, former students, etc.  Ask other students, ask alumni, ask post-docs, ask your undergraduate mentors or current professors about how they made this choice or what they know about who might be a good advisor for you.
• Don’t believe everything you hear:  Students often get discouraged because “they heard” that Professor Z is not taking any more students, or that Professor X expects his prospective PhD students to complete every exercise in Textbook Y before being approached to serve as a mentor. Find out for yourself! Often, the story is quite different from what “you heard.”
• Go to junior colloquium : here you will see what professors are doing, and also meet students who will have insight/advice/opinions about different advisors. Do not restrict yourself only to those meetings you think are in an area of interest! Go to all. Be open-minded. Be broad. Strong mathematicians are familiar with what is happening outside their own narrow expertise. And you might find an advisor in an area you didn’t expect.
• Make a habit to attend and give talks : Regularly attend colloquia. Become part of a student seminar community or create your own. Attend a regular seminar in your area of interest, and try to learn something from each talk, even if you barely follow the first five minutes. It will get easier. It takes babies 2 years or so to learn the language of their parents;  I think it’s about the same for students to learn the language of a seminar. Socialize with participants. Take advantage of subsidized dinners!
• Pick someone sooner rather than later : It is never a waste of time to get going on learning some good math. It is a great idea to read some material suggested by a professor (or tentative advisor) in the summer, ideally even meeting with them regularly.  Everyone will be more committed if it is clearly an “ advising relationship ”, even a tentative one. Even realizing that this subject or person is not right for you is progress toward finding your advisor.

Advice from PhD Students on Studying for QR Exams

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

Advising guide for research students.

Success as a graduate student is a shared responsibility between students and faculty. For research students, the relationship with your research advisor, also known as your special committee chair, is extremely important. 

Your responsibility to identify and choose an advisor is one of the most critical tasks you have early in your graduate school career. It’s an opportunity to meet and get to know faculty in your field, to assess your needs for support and supervision, and to collaboratively define your goals, values, and strategic plan for your academic and professional career.

Graduate School Requirement

At Cornell, the faculty advisor in research degree programs is referred to as the special committee chair.

Doctoral students have a special committee of at least three Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and two minor committee members.

Master’s students have a special committee of at least two Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and one minor member.

For both doctoral and master’s degree students, the special committee chair must be a graduate faculty member in the student’s own field.

Definition of an Advisor

Advising  and  mentoring  are often used interchangeably, but understanding the distinctions is important as you choose an advisor.

Advisor Responsibilities

• Guides you in meeting the requirements and expectations for your degree
• Required coursework
• Exams required by the graduate field or the Graduate School
• Research proposal/prospectus
• Research project
• Thesis or dissertation
• Writes informed letters of recommendation for your job applications
• May be a valued colleague or collaborator after you graduate

Mentor Responsibilities

• Provides support and guidance that extends beyond scope of advising
• Demystifies the structure, culture, and unstated expectations of graduate education
• Expands your professional network by introducing you to others
• Provides nominations for awards or other recognitions
• Brings job opportunities to your attention and writes letters of recommendation as you apply for jobs
• Advocates for you within the graduate program and discipline
• May serve as a role model and source of inspiration
• May become a colleague and peer in your discipline and may continue serving a mentoring role

Finding an Advisor

When do i select my first advisor.

At Cornell, the process for obtaining your first advisor varies by field.

Your faculty advisor may be assigned prior to your arrival or you may begin your program with a faculty member you met during the application process.

In some graduate fields, the faculty director of graduate studies (DGS) advises all incoming students. This provides you with time to get to know faculty in your field. By the end of the first semester or year (varying by field), it’s expected that you will have identified your own, long-term advisor. 

In fields where students apply to study with a specific faculty member (rather than do rotations and choose a lab or research group and advisor), you will have chosen an advisor prior to arriving on campus.

You can begin initial conversations about expectations and the advising relationship with your new advisor prior to the start of your program via email.

Start your graduate study and research with clear expectations and thoughtful communication about your plans for an effective advising relationship and success in graduate school.

How do I find an advisor? 

Meet and get to know faculty in your courses and in graduate field seminars and other events.

Talk to advanced students about their experiences and perceptions of the faculty in your programs and ask questions about possible advisors:

• How would you describe their approach to advising?
• What can you tell me about their work style?
• What can you tell me about their research interests?
• How good are their communication skills?
• How clear are their expectations for their graduate students?
• Do they use timeliness in reviewing their students’ writing and their approach to giving feedback?
• How available are they to meet with their graduate students?

After you have gathered information, make an appointment to meet with a potential advisor.

Possible Questions

• Is there a typical timeline you encourage your students to follow in completing their degree programs?
• How often do you meet with your students at different stages of their graduate program? (For example, during coursework, research, and writing stages)
• What are your expectations for students to make conference presentations and submit publications?
• What are your authorship policies? (This is especially relevant in fields where there is collaborative research and publishing involving the student and advisor or a group of students, postdocs, and faculty.)
• How soon should I identify my research project?
• How do you describe the degree of guidance and supervision you provide with regards to your students becoming more independent in their research and scholarship?
• If you are joining a lab or research group: What are the sources of funding for this research? Are there any new or pending research grants?
• How many of your students seek, and secure, external funding? What are your expectations for students to apply for external fellowships?
• Do you have a statement of advising you can share that lists our respective responsibilities and clarifies mutual expectations?
• What’s your advice on how students can manage what they find to be the biggest challenges in their graduate program?

Add other questions to your list based on your own needs and specifics of your program, such as questions about specialized equipment, lab safety, travel to field sites, support and accommodations for special health needs, communication during a faculty member’s sabbatical, funding in fields where there are fewer fellowships and research grants, etc.

Getting Other Mentoring Needs Met

How do i find other mentor(s) .

You may find one faculty member who can serve as both advisor and mentor, but that’s not always the case.

Consider identifying and cultivating additional mentors if that is the case. 

Suggestions on where to look for a mentor:

• The minor members of your special committee
• A faculty member who is not on your committee, and perhaps not even in your graduate field
• Peers and postdoctoral fellows who have knowledge and experience in pertinent issues

No one mentor can meet all your needs.

Good mentors have many protégés and many other demands on their time, such as teaching, research, and university or professional service. They also may not have all the expertise you need, for example, if you decide to search for jobs in multiple employment sectors.

Develop a broad network of mentors whose expertise varies and who provide different functions based on your changing needs as you progress from new student to independent scholar and researcher.

NCFDD offers a webinar, “ Cultivating Your Network of Mentors, Sponsors, and Collaborators “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Maximizing the Advising Relationship

A successful relationship with your advisor depends on several different factors and varies with needs and working styles of the individuals. Some of these factors are under your control. But some are not. 

Suggestions for Building a Successful Advising Relationship

• Identify what you need from an advisor.
• Communicate clearly and frequently with your advisor to convey your questions, expectations, goals, challenges, and degree progress. Follow up verbal communication and meetings with an email detailing your understanding of what you both agreed to and next steps.
• Update your written academic plan each semester or whenever major changes or adjustments are needed.
• Consider including your plans to write competitive fellowship applications and co-authored grant proposals.
• Consider including  plans for professional development  that support your skill-building objectives and career goals.
• Recognize that you and your advisor have distinct perspectives, backgrounds, and interests. Share yours. Listen to your advisor’s. There is mutual benefit to sharing and learning from this diversity.
• Work with your advisor to define a regular meeting schedule. Prepare and send written materials in advance of each meeting. These could include: your questions, academic and research plan and timeline, and drafts of current writing projects, such as fellowship applications, manuscripts, or thesis/dissertation chapters.
• Be prepared to negotiate, show flexibility, and compromise, as is important for any successful relationship.
• Be as candid as you are comfortable with about your challenges and concerns. Seek guidance about campus and other resources that can help you manage and address any obstacles.
• Reach out to others for advice. Anticipate challenges and obstacles in your graduate degree program and their impact on the advising relationship.

Be proactive in finding resources and gathering information that can help you and your advisor arrive at solutions to any problems and optimize your time together.

Making Use of Meetings

First meetings.

Your first meeting sets the tone for a productive, satisfying, and enduring relationship with your advisor. Your first meeting is an opportunity to discuss expectations and to review a working draft of your academic plan.

Questions to ask about expectations

• What do your most successful students do to complete their degree on time?
• How often do you want us to meet?
• May I send you questions via email, or do you prefer I just come to your office?
• Would you like weekly (biweekly? monthly?) updates on my research progress?
• Do you prefer reviewing the complete draft of a manuscript or may I send you sections for feedback?
• After each meeting, I’ll make a list of what we each agreed to do before our next meeting, to help me keep moving forward with my research. Would you like a copy of that list, too, via email?

Draft Academic Plan

Prepare and bring a draft plan that outlines your “big picture” plans for your coursework, research, and writing, as well as an anticipated graduation date. (Or, email in advance with a message, such as, “I’m looking forward to meeting with you on [date] at [time], [location]. In advance, I’m sending a copy of my academic plan and proposed schedule for our discussion.”)

Contents of the plan

• Include the requirements and deadlines of your degree program. (This is information you should be able to find online or in your program’s graduate student handbook.)
• Include a general timeline indicating when you plan to meet requirements for courses or seminars, any required papers (such as a second-year paper), exams required by the graduate field (such as the Q exam) or by the Graduate School (the A exam and the B exam for research degree students).
• If your graduate field has a specific set of required courses, indicate the semester you may complete each of them, and be open to suggestions from your advisor.
• If your field does not have required courses, have some idea about the courses you are interested in taking and solicit input and suggestions from your faculty advisor.

Subsequent Meetings

Use each subsequent meeting as an opportunity to update your written academic plan and stay on track to complete your required papers and exams, your research proposal or prospectus, and the chapters or articles that comprise your thesis or dissertation.

In later meetings, you can elaborate on your general initial plan:

• Adding specific coursework or seminars
• Add professional development opportunities that interest you (workshops, dissertation writing boot camp, Summer Success Symposium, Colman Leadership Program, etc.)
• Include intentions to participate in external conferences and travel to research sites
• Identify a semester or summer when you would like to complete an internship.

Your written plan is also important to document what your advisor has agreed to, especially when the deadline to submit a manuscript or your thesis is looming and you are awaiting feedback or approval from your advisor. Use a combination of oral and written communications to stay in touch with your advisor, establish common expectations, and mark your progress toward degree completion.

Meeting Frequency

The frequency of meetings between advisors and advisees varies by field and individual. Assess your own needs and understand your advisor’s expectations for frequency of communication (in person and via email).

• Does your advisor like to provide guidance each step of the way so that he or she is aware of the details of everything you are doing?
• Does your advisor want you to launch your work more independently and report back at pre-determined or regular intervals?
• What do you need to be productive? Are you ready to work more independently?

Be proactive in seeking information. Explicitly ask how often your advisor usually meets with new students and how the advisor prefers to be updated on your progress in between meetings. Ask your peers how frequently they meet with their advisor and whether this has changed over time.

There will be disciplinary differences in meeting frequency.

• In humanities and in some social sciences, where library, archive, and field research take students away from campus, maintaining regular communication is essential, including through scheduled meetings, whether in-person or virtual.
• In life sciences and physical sciences and engineering, students often see their advisors daily in the lab or meet as a research group about externally funded projects; these regular check-ins and conversations may replace formal meetings. Make sure that you are also scheduling one-on-one times to talk about your broader goals and academic and career planning progress, however.

Some of your decisions about meeting frequency will be informed by talking to others, but much of it you learn through experience working together with your advisor. Even this will  change over time  as you become a more independent researcher and scholar. Communicate with your advisor regularly about your changing needs and expectations at each stage of your graduate career.

Resolving Conflict

In any relationship, there can be conflict. And, in the advisor-advisee relationship, the power dynamic created by the supervision, evaluation and, in some cases, funding role of your advisor can make conflicts with your advisor seem especially high.

You have options, however, including:

• Code of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty
• Campus Code of Conduct
• Policy on Academic Misconduct
• Research Misconduct
• Graduate School Grievance Policy
• Intellectual Property policies
• Graduate Student Assistantships (Policy 1.3)
• Talking with your advisor to clarify any miscommunication. Cornell University’s Office of the Ombudsman , one of the offices on campus that offers confidentiality, can also assist you by talking through the issue and helping you gather information you need before you speak directly with your advisor.
• Speaking with someone in the Graduate School, either the associate dean for academics ( [email protected] ) for academic issues, or the associate dean for graduate student life ( [email protected] ) for other issues. These deans will listen, offer advice and support, and coach you through any conversation you might want to have with your advisor. Together, you can brainstorm possible solutions and evaluate alternative plans for resolution.
• Touching base with your director of graduate studies (DGS) – if this person is not also your advisor – to talk to about policies and possible solutions to the conflict.
• Soliciting peer advice. Discuss strategies for managing and resolving conflict with your advisor. “Do you have any suggestions for me?” “Have you ever had an issue like this…?” can be effective questions.
• Identifying a new advisor if the conflict can not be resolved. Your DGS can help with this, and the Graduate School (as above) can help as well.

The National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity offers a webinar, “ How to Engage in Healthy Conflict “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Changing Advisors

On occasion, students find that they need or want to change their advisor. An advisor can resign as the student’s special committee chair/faculty advisor. The  Code  of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty describes the rights and responsibilities of students and faculty in each of these situations.

Typical reasons to seek a new advisor include:

• Research interests that veer from the faculty’s expertise or ability to fund a certain project
• Your advisor retires or resigns from the university or takes an extended leave of absence for personal or professional reasons
• Differences in goals, values, or an approach to work or communication style that can’t be resolved
• Serious issues, involving suspected inappropriate behavior, questionable research conduct, or alleged bias, discrimination, or harassment

If you are considering changing advisors:

• Talk to a member of your committee, your director of graduate studies (DGS), or someone in the Graduate School about the proposed change. Some issues, such as funding, require timely attention.
• Identify other faculty members who could serve as your advisor, then meet with one or more of them. The goal is to decide together if you are a good fit with their program. Tips: Discuss or rehearse this conversation with a trusted person, especially if there were issues with your last advisor. Be transparent about these issues and address them going forward with a new advisor. Often prospective advisors are more willing to take on a new graduate student who conveys genuine enthusiasm for their area of study rather than a student who seems to be looking for a way out of a current advising relationship that has gone sour.
• Consider how and when to inform your advisor if you plan to change advisors. Be professional and respectful. Thank your advisor for past support and guidance. Don’t damage, or further damage, the relationship.
• Your DGS, if appropriate
• Office of the University Ombudsman
• Graduate School’s associate dean for graduate student life ( [email protected] )
• Graduate School’s associate dean for academics ( [email protected] )

Forms: 

• Use Student Center if you are changing your advisor before your A exam (for Ph.D. students).
• Use the Post A Committee Change Petition form for changes after the A exam. More information is available on the Graduate School’s Policy pages .

Challenges and Potential Solutions

All good relationships take work. To navigate an advising relationship successfully over time, you should familiarize yourself with some common challenges and possible actions to take.

Challenge: Mismatch in communication needs or style

One example of a communication challenge in an advising relationship is when you want input along the way during a writing project, but you have an advisor who prefers to wait to comment on a complete written draft.

Some possible steps to address this might be to talk to peers about they have handled this in their relationship with their advisor or to explain to your advisor how his or her input at this earlier stage will help speed you along toward having a complete draft for review. It’s important in communicating with your advisor to show that you understand what alternative they are proposing and why (e.g., “I understand that …”).

Challenge: Advisor unavailable or away

Your advisor might be away from campus for a semester or more to conduct research or take a sabbatical leave. Or when a grant proposal deadline or report is looming, your advisor might be less available. Maybe you’ve emailed your advisor several times with no response.

Planning and stating in advance what you need, such as feedback on a manuscript draft or signatures on a fellowship application, can help your advisor anticipate when you will have time-sensitive requests. Making plans in advance to communicate by email or video conference when either of you will be away from campus for a longer period of time is another useful strategy. Your director of graduate studies (DGS) and other faculty who serve as special committee members can also provide advice when your advisor is unavailable.

Challenge: Misaligned expectations

You are ready to submit a manuscript for publication. Your advisor says it needs much more work. Or you begin your job search, applying to liberal arts colleges with very high reputations, or schools in your preferred geographic location, but your advisor insists that you should apply for positions at top research universities.

Discussing your needs and expectations early, and often, in the advising relationship is essential. Get comfortable, and skilled, advocating for yourself with your advisor. Use the annual  Student Progress Review  as an opportunity to communicate your professional interests and goals with your advisor. Use multiple mentors beyond your advisor to get advice and expertise on topics where you need a different perspective or support.

Sometimes challenges can become opportunities for you to develop and refine new skills in communication, negotiation, self-advocacy, and management of conflict, time, and resources. For example, although you might feel abandoned if your advisor is unavailable for a time, even this potentially negative experience could become an opportunity to learn how to advocate for yourself and communicate about your needs and perceived difficulties in the relationship.

Advising Resources

Graduate School deans and directors  are available to answer academic and non-academic questions and provide referrals to useful resources.

Counseling and Psychological Services  (CAPS) staff offer confidential, professional support for students seeking help with stress, anxiety, depression, grief, adjustment challenges, relationship difficulties, questions about identity, and managing existing mental health conditions.

Let’s Talk Drop-in Consultations  are informal, confidential walk-in consultations at various locations around campus.

External Resources

University of Michigan Rackham, How to Get the Mentoring You Want  

Laura Gail Lunsford & Vicki L. Baker, 2016, Great Mentoring in Graduate School: A Quick Start Guide for Protégés

Michigan State University, Guidelines for Graduate Student Advising and Mentoring Relationships  

Michigan State University, Graduate Student Career and Professional Development  

Template for Meeting Notes

Adapted and expanded from Maria Gardiner, Flinders University © Flinders University 2007; used with permission and published in  The Productive Graduate Student Writer  (Allen, 2019). Used here with permission of the author and publisher.  

Use this template for making notes to help you plan for a productive meeting with your advisor, keep track of plans made, and clearly identify next steps that you’ll need to take to follow up on what you discussed.

Mentoring Resources

Graduate school programs focused on mentoring, building mentoring skills for an academic career.

Develop and enhance effective communication and mentorship skills that are broadly transferrable to all careers. Offered by Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate and Professional Students International (GPSI) Peer Mentoring Program

Share lessons learned as a new international student at Cornell as a peer mentor with new international student peer mentees. Offered by the GPSI in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

Graduate Students Mentoring Undergraduates (GSMU)

Share knowledge with and provide support to undergraduate students interested in pursuing further education. Offered in collaboration with the Office of Academic Diversity Initiatives (OADI).

Multicultural Academic Council (MAC) Peer Mentoring Program

Develop strategies to excel academically and personally at Cornell and beyond as a peer mentee or share strategies as a peer mentor. Offered by MAC in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

NextGen Professors Program

Learn from faculty in Power Mentoring Sessions and prepare for careers across institutional types. Offered by the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement and Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate School Programs with a Mentoring Component

Graduate school primer: navigating academia workshop series.

Program for new students on navigating graduate school with sessions on mentoring.

Perspectives: The Complete Graduate Student

Program for continuing students on common issues with some sessions on mentoring.

GPWomeN-PCCW Speaker Series

Series for all students featuring talks by Cornell alumnae with an occasional mentoring focus.

Future Professors Institute

One-day event featuring workshops and guest speakers with occasional mentoring focus.

Intergroup Dialogue Project (IDP)

Peer-led courses blending theory and experiential learning to facilitate meaningful communication with occasional mentoring focus.

Building Allyship Series

Series for the campus community featuring panels designed for productive dialogue with occasional mentoring focus.

Institutional Memberships

Center for the integration of research, teaching, and learning (cirtl) network.

Access to resources on teaching and research mentoring.

Access to career development and mentoring resources.

New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS)

Access to resources, including webinars and articles on mentoring.

Mentoring Programs Across Campus

Give and receive advice as part of a peer mentoring program for all College of Engineering students. Offered by Diversity Programs in Engineering.

Mi Comunidad/My Community

Peer mentoring program run by graduate and professional students affiliated with the Latin@ Graduate Student Coalition (LGSC) and supported by the Latina/o Studies Program (LSP) and Latina/o/x Student Success Office (LSSO) at Cornell University.

Additional Resources:

• Mentoring and Leadership Tips from Graduate School Programs
• Cornell University Office of Faculty Development and Diversity – Resources for Mentors and Mentees
• Careers Beyond Academia LibGuide
• National Research Mentoring Network

Graduate School Articles on Mentoring:

• Alumna Addresses Importance of Mentoring
• Becoming Better Mentors Through Workshop Series
• August Offers Mentoring Advice
• ‘A Better Chance of Providing Access’: Future Professors Institute Fosters Inclusivity

Virtual Training and External Resources

• How to Get the Mentoring You Want: A Guide for Graduate Students – University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School
• The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine
• Mentor Training: Online Learning Modules – University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute
• Mentor Curricula and Training: Entering Mentoring – Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research

For other resources, view the Advising Guide for Research Students.

If there is anything not included on this list that we should consider, please send the information and a link to [email protected] .

3.3.1 Academic Advising: Policy

Main navigation.

• 1. Responsibilities of Advisors
• 2. Co-Advisors
• 3. Advisors from Other than the Student’s Home Department
• 4. Change or Replacement of Advisor

Related Content

Last updated on: Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Provides that all graduate students are to receive appropriate advising throughout their degree programs.

Effective academic advising is a critical component of a successful graduate degree program. At Stanford, all matriculated graduate students are to be advised by a member of the faculty. The nature of academic advising may differ for different programs and at different stages in a degree program. 

By the start of their first term of graduate study, students should select or be paired by the degree program with faculty advisors who assist them in planning a program of study to meet degree requirements. The process for the selection or assignment of advisors for incoming students, sometimes referred to as program advisors, academic advisors, or first-year advisors, varies and should be explained in writing to incoming students. The timing and process by which students may change from this initial advisor to a more permanent advisor should also be explained.

The degree program should also ensure that doctoral students are informed in a timely fashion about procedures for selecting a principal dissertation advisor, reading committee members, and orals committee members. Degree programs should make every effort to assist doctoral students who are not yet admitted to candidacy in finding an appropriate principal dissertation advisor, and dissertation co-advisor if appropriate.  

Students are obliged to follow degree program procedures for identifying advisors and committee members for their dissertation reading and university oral examinations and ensure the membership of those committees is aligned with university policies (see  GAP 4.7  Doctoral Degrees, University Orals Examinations and Committees  and  GAP 4.8  Doctoral Degrees, Dissertations and Dissertation Reading Committees ). 

Authority: 

• Committee on Graduate Studies (policy)
• Degree programs (implementation)

Applicability: 

Applicable to all graduate students, faculty who advise graduate students, and degree programs.

Related Pages: 

3.3.2 Academic Advising: Implementation

1. Responsibilities of Advisors

General responsibilities of faculty advisors.

The university requires that within each degree program minimum advising expectations be set for both advisor and advisee. Such minimum expectations must differentiate between master’s and doctoral programs, and between different types of advisors (academic/program vs. research.) These degree program expectations must be distributed to faculty and graduate students on an annual basis at the start of each academic year and must be easily accessible on the web. Faculty are expected to affirm that they have received the advising expectations. Each faculty member has the prerogative to augment the degree program's advising expectations with their specific additional expectations, while remaining consistent with the degree program's advising policies. 

Faculty advisors are to: 

• serve as intellectual and professional mentors to their graduate students
• provide knowledgeable support concerning the academic and non-academic policies that pertain to graduate students
• help to prepare students to be competitive for employment
• maintain a high level of professionalism in the relationship
• establish and collaboratively maintain expectations of the advisor/advisee relationship, consistent with degree program standards.

Dissertation Advisors

The principal dissertation advisor (also called thesis advisor or research advisor), who must be a member of the Academic Council, establishes a critically important relationship with the doctoral student. The principal dissertation advisor provides guidance and direction to the doctoral student’s research, as well as evaluation of the student’s progress, often in the context of a research group. As a mentor and a role model, the dissertation advisor plays a critical role in the student’s development as an academic researcher. In many cases, the dissertation advisor is expected to provide financial support for the doctoral student, typically from research grants and contracts.

The dissertation advisor will normally serve as a member of the student’s oral examination committee, and as the chair of the student’s doctoral dissertation reading committee.  

Because of the critical importance of this role, and the potential significance of difficulties that may arise in this relationship, degree programs should designate a resource for faculty members and graduate students to call on for assistance in resolving difficulties. This role may be filled by the department chair, the faculty Director of Graduate Studies, or a specially designated resource in the degree program. Students, faculty, and staff may also consult with campus resources including VPGE, the  Graduate Life Office , the  School Dean’s Offices , and the  University Ombuds  or  School of Medicine Ombuds .

Back to top

2. Co-Advisors

At their discretion, students may identify a co-advisor in addition to the principal dissertation advisor; normally both principal advisor and co-advisor are members of the Academic Council. A former Stanford Academic Council member, emeritus professor, or non-Academic Council member may serve as co-advisor with the appointment of a principal dissertation advisor who is currently on the Academic Council (see  GAP 4.8 Doctoral Degrees, Dissertations and Dissertation Reading Committees ). Professors who have recently become emeritus and have been recalled to active duty may serve as principal dissertation advisors, though they are no longer members of the Academic Council. Requests for further exceptions to the requirement that the principal dissertation advisor be a current member of the Academic Council, for example for recently retired emeritus professors who are still actively engaged on campus, but not recalled to active duty, will be reviewed by the Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education.

3. Advisors from Other than the Student’s Home Department

It is expected that faculty advisors will hold an appointment in the student’s major department or program. An advisor may be appointed from outside the major department subject to the approval of the major department; a co-advisor who is a member of the department is recommended.  Departmental approval is conveyed by means of recording the name of the advisor in the PeopleSoft Student Administration record. Students enrolled in an interdisciplinary graduate program (IDP) should have a faculty advisor who is affiliated with the program. Interdisciplinary program approval of an advisor outside the department is automatic, since by definition IDPs only have affiliated faculty, not departmental faculty.

4. Change or Replacement of Advisor

Students may change advisors at different time points in their program. For example, in some degree programs it is typical to change sometime within the first two years from an assigned first-year or program advisor to a principal dissertation advisor selected by agreement of the student, faculty, and degree program. Students may change advisors for other reasons, for example, if their research interests change or if their advisor leaves Stanford. Occasionally, a student’s research may diverge from the area of competence of the advisor, or irreconcilable differences may occur between the student and the faculty advisor. In such cases, the student or the faculty advisor may request a change in assignment. The degree program should make every reasonable effort to facilitate the change and to pair the student with another suitable advisor, which may entail some modification of the student’s research project.

In the rare case where a student’s dissertation research on an approved project is in an advanced stage and the dissertation advisor is no longer available, every reasonable effort must be made to appoint a new advisor, usually from the student’s reading committee. This may also require that a new member be added to the reading committee before the draft dissertation is evaluated, to keep the reconstituted committee in compliance with the university requirements for its composition. (Advisor changes are made with the  Change of Dissertation Adviser or Reading Committee Member  form).

In the event that a student’s advisor leaves Stanford University or becomes emeritus, and has not been recalled to active duty, that advisor may continue to work with the graduate student as a co-advisor and serve on the oral and dissertation reading committees, with the appointment of a principal dissertation advisor who is currently a member of the Academic Council (see  GAP 4.8 Doctoral Degrees, Dissertations and Dissertation Reading Committees ). Professors who have recently become emeritus and have been recalled to active duty may serve as principal dissertation advisor, though they are no longer members of the Academic Council. Requests for further exceptions to the requirement that the principal dissertation advisor be a current member of the Academic Council, for example for recently retired emeritus professors who are still actively engaged on campus, will be reviewed by the Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education.

Related Policies

• GAP 4.7 Doctoral Degrees, University Oral Examinations and Committees
• GAP 4.8 Doctoral Degrees, Dissertations and Dissertation Reading Committees

Related Student Services Sections

Related information and forms.

• Policies & Best Practices for Advising Relationships at Stanford  (pdf)
• Guidelines for Faculty-Student Advising at Stanford  (pdf)
• Change of Dissertation Adviser or Reading Committee Member form

• Recommendations
• Notifications
• My Favorites

Favorites, recommendations, and notifications are only available for UCLA Graduate Students at this time.

Access features exclusively for UCLA students and staff.

As a student, you can:

• Add funding awards to your favorites list
• Get notified of upcoming deadlines and events
• Receive personalized recommendations for funding awards

 We're Sorry

You've signed in with a UCLA undergraduate student account.

UCLA Graduate Programs

Duties and Responsibilities of the Graduate Adviser

Graduate advisers play a key role in the academic life of students and in the functions of the Graduate Division. When a graduate student enters a department to do graduate work, he or she is assigned a faculty adviser. Some departments have just one graduate adviser who counsels all graduate students; in other departments, some or all faculty members serve as advisers.

The graduate advisers are appointed by the department chair or interdepartmental degree program committee. The chair’s signature is required on some forms; in other cases, the graduate advisers’ signatures are the only departmental signatures, in addition to the chair, recognized as official on various Graduate Division forms and on petitions presented by graduate students. Graduate advisers formally approve students’ programs of study, advise them on advancement to candidacy for higher degrees, consider their petitions to change majors, to add or drop courses, to apply for readmission, etc. In all of these matters, the adviser or the advisement team must judge whether the student’s request is in order, is in his or her own best interest, and is feasible under existing regulations.

The Graduate Division recognizes that departmental staff also play a pivotal role in providing information and advice on policy and procedures to students. In some instances, staff are even recommended by the chair for signature authority for certain petitions and forms (e.g. current drop/add petitions). Therefore, it is essential that staff who have administrative responsibility for serving graduate students become thoroughly familiar with the policies and procedures outlined in all Graduate Division publications available on this web site.

The Graduate Division staff hopes that the information presented on this site will be helpful to all graduate advisers and to departmental staff assistants in the understanding of the many policies, procedures and other matters that are encountered in the counseling of students. We welcome your feedback and suggestions for improvement in the presentation of these materials.

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of adviser

Did you know.

What's the difference between adviser and advisor ?

Adviser or advisor ? It doesn't matter what your computer's spellcheck tells you, adviser and advisor are both correct. Although there is enough overlap between these two words that they are generally considered simply to be different ways to spell the same word, there are some cases in which one tends to be used more often than the other. Some people feel that advisor is more formal, and it tends to be found more often when applied to official positions, such as an advisor to a president. When referring to someone who is serving in a military role, especially when using the term as a euphemism (as when claiming that troops are actually military advisers), then adviser is somewhat more common.

• consigliere
• counsellor

Examples of adviser in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'adviser.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

advise + -er entry 2 , -or entry 1

circa 1536, in the meaning defined above

Articles Related to adviser

'Advisor' vs. 'Adviser': Who Will Win?

Going head-to-head in a centuries-old rivalry

Dictionary Entries Near adviser

advise one against

advisership

Cite this Entry

“Adviser.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adviser. Accessed 25 Jun. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on adviser

Nglish: Translation of adviser for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of adviser for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day, remuneration.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, more commonly misspelled words, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, popular in wordplay, 8 words with fascinating histories, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, birds say the darndest things, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), 10 scrabble words without any vowels, games & quizzes.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Commonly confused words
• Advisor vs. Adviser | Definition, Difference & Examples

Advisor vs. Adviser | Definition, Difference & Examples

Published on November 3, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on August 23, 2023.

Advisor and adviser are different spellings of the same word. Both are considered acceptable spellings, though there is some regional variation.

• Adviser is the original and more commonly used spelling. It is sometimes considered more informal.
• Advisor is also considered a correct spelling. It is less commonly used, but usually signifies an official position. It is more common in US English than UK English .

His vast combat experience made him a sought-after military adviser in the private sector.

Jane had worked as an academic advisor at the local college for many years and was beloved by the students.

Check commonly confused words for free

Fix mistakes for free

Table of contents

Other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or writing rules make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

 Academic Writing

• Avoiding repetition
• Effective headings
• Passive voice
• Transition words
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

Check commonly confused words

Use the best grammar checker available to check that you've used the right words.

According to AP Style, adviser is the correct spelling. But other sources such as Merriam-Webster list both advisor and adviser as equally correct. Just pick one and be consistent in your writing.

According to sources such as Merriam-Webster, you can use both PhD advisor and PhD adviser. They are both considered to be equally correct. A good rule of thumb is just to pick either advisor or adviser , and be consistent in your writing.

According to sources such as Merriam-Webster, you can use both college advisor and college adviser. They are both considered to be equally correct. A good rule of thumb is just to pick either advisor or adviser , and be consistent in your writing.

According to sources such as Merriam-Webster, you can use both financial advisor and financial adviser. They are both considered to be equally correct. A good rule of thumb is just to pick either advisor or adviser , and be consistent in your writing.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, August 23). Advisor vs. Adviser | Definition, Difference & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/commonly-confused-words/adviser-or-advisor/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, cancelled or canceled | difference & examples, blond vs. blonde | difference & example sentences, gray or grey | difference & example sentences, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Carruthers Hall, 1001 N. Emmet St. P.O. Box 400203 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4203 Phone: (434) 924-4122 Fax: (434) 924-4156 Email: M-F: 10am - noon and 1pm - 4pm © 2024 By the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
	University of Virginia
	Jun 25, 2024   Undergraduate Record 2024-2025     Undergraduate Record 2024-2025 Universal Degree Requirements To be awarded a degree from the College of Arts and Sciences, students are required to complete universal curriculum requirements in addition to the program requirements provided below. The school universal curriculum requirements can be found on the school  Degree Programs page   . Interested students currently in their fourth semester in the College of Arts and Sciences are invited to apply for admission into this interdisciplinary program. As a distinguished major, the program admits only eighteen to twenty new students a year. A 3.20 cumulative GPA is generally required for admission; the average GPA of recent classes is well above this.  The program assumes the students will be in Charlottesville their third and fourth years.  It is highly desirable (but not mandatory) that students applying for the PST program should take at least one of the courses listed under the foundations of political and social thought by the end of their second year. Courses taken before admission to the major can be counted toward fulfilling its requirements. Students interested in becoming PST majors should submit: a completed PST application form (available on the PST website); an official transcript a letter of recommendation by a faculty member sent directly to Prof. Smith a 300-500 word essay. This essay should address the following questions: (1) What are your intellectual goals and why are they best addressed in the interdisciplinary PST major? (2) At this (tentative) point, what three area studies will you select in constructing your PST curriculum and why? This answer does not commit students to a particular course of studies if they are accepted into the program; but it should reflect a thoughtful and coherent curricular plan. a writing sample–preferably a previously completed and graded term paper or essay that represents one’s work at its best. a brief statement of one or two significant extracurricular activities, and why the commitment is worth the time.  The above materials should be assembled in a manila file folder and placed under Professor Smith’s office door, Gibson S-396, by March 1. (Students studying abroad may submit applications online.) Candidates should hear from the committee by the end of March. The director of the PST program holds a meeting for the prospective majors in early February to answer any questions about admission procedures and program requirements. Students may also obtain this information from the PST website. Abstracts of recent PST theses are available on the website; these provide a concrete sense of how students pursue the intellectual opportunities of the program. Requirements for Major The major has four basic components: PST Seminars (8 credits) Foundation Courses (6 credits) Area Studies (18 credits) Thesis (6 credits, full year) PST Seminars - Credits: 8 Open to PST majors only, the following must be taken by the student: PST 4850 - Core Seminar in Political and Social Thought I Credits: 3 PST 4870 - Core Seminar in Political and Social Thought II Credits: 3 PST 4980 - Workshop in Thesis Research Credits: 1 PST 4989 - Workshop in Thesis Research Credits: 1 Foundation Courses Each student must complete at least six credits from the following list of courses, or equivalents approved by the director, dealing with political and social thought or its historical foundations: ANTH 3010 - Theory and History of Anthropology Credits: 3 HIEU 3782 - Origins of Modern Thought, 1580-1943 Credits: 3 HIEU 3802 - Origins of Contemporary Thought Credits: 3 PHIL 2690 - Justice, Law, and Morality Credits: 3 PHIL 3640 - Political Philosophy Credits: 3 PHIL 3710 - Ethics Credits: 3 PHIL 3720 - Contemporary Ethics Credits: 3 PLIR 3310 - Ethics and Human Rights in World Politics Credits: 3 PLPT 3010 - Ancient and Medieval Political Theory Credits: 3 PLPT 3020 - Modern Political Thought Credits: 3 PLPT 3030 - Contemporary Political Thought Credits: 3 PLPT 4200 - Feminist Political Theory Credits: 3 RELG 3650 - Systems of Theological Ethics Credits: 3 SOC 3020 - Introduction to Social Theory Credits: 3 WGS 4810 - Feminist Theory Credits: 3 Area Studies Each student is required to define three different area studies. An area is defined as a particular intellectual theme or subfield of interest to be investigated in the course of the student’s studies. These areas can be derived from within, between, or outside traditional disciplines. Some examples of area studies might include aspects of modern (or contemporary) political thought; ethical issues in modern economic development, human rights; religion in world politics; identity politics in modern social movements; state-building in third world societies; the modern welfare state; mass media and contemporary social communication; environmental justice. NOTE: An area of study is more specific than simply the name of a department or discipline. For each area, the student must complete two relevant courses, normally at the 3000 level or above. The total of six courses necessary to fulfill the area requirements must be drawn from at least three different disciplines, programs, or departments . In brief: 3 areas; 2 courses per area; 3 disciplines; Total credits:  18. Taken together, the three areas of study should be well thought-out and intellectually coherent, and form the general basis of study for the fourth-year thesis. The three areas of study define the interdisciplinary character of the student’s program and must meet a rigorous standard of coherence. In consultation with their advisors and the program director, students are expected to articulate the rationale of their choices in a brief written statement due by the end of the third year. Fourth-Year Thesis - Credits: 6 PST 4998 - Thesis in Political and Social Thought Credits: 2 PST 4999 - Thesis in Political and Social Thought Credits: 4 Additional Information For more information contact Michael J. Smith, Program Director, Gibson S-396, [email protected]. Also consult the program’s website; http://pst.as.virginia.edu/ . Graduate School Request Information 2024-2025 Doctoral Dissertation Fellows The graduate school is pleased to announce the 2024-2025 ddf fellowship recipients. Congratulations to the recipients of the 2024-2025 DDF Fellowship! The Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship (DDF) gives the University's most accomplished Ph.D. candidates an opportunity to devote full-time effort to an outstanding research project by providing time to finalize and write a dissertation during the fellowship year. Hamidreza Alai  Mechanical Engineering Advisor(s): Rajesh Rajamani "Vehicle Tracking Based on Low-Cost Sensors: Applications to Micromobility Devices and Autonomous Vehicles" Joshua Althoff History Advisor(s): David Chang, Jean O'Brien "Vincennes in Myaamionki: Constructing and Contesting Indiana's Past in Miami Homelands" Harsha Anantharaman Geography Advisor(s): Vinay Gidwani "Exclusionary Inclusion: How Caste and Capital Logics Shape the Politics of Recognition, Formalization, and Infrastructural Reform in Contemporary Urban India" Elizabeth Ancel Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences Advisor(s): Benjamin Munson "Say exactly what I say: Social considerations for children’s performance in sentence repetition tasks" Taiwo Aremu Social and Administrative Pharmacy Advisor(s): Jon Schommer "Key Components for Planning and Developing New Pharmaceutical Enterprise that Produces the COVID-19 Vaccine in Nigeria for Local Uptake" Amber Armstrong Education, Curriculum and Instruction Advisor(s): Erin Baldinger "Learning the Nonlinear Dynamics of Climate Change through Mathematics Instruction" Athanasios Bacharis Computer Science Advisor(s): Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos "Efficient Robotic Automation Leveraging Optimal Visual and Language Information" Kaylee Barr Chemical Engineering Advisor(s): Theresa Reineke, Frank Bates "Design and synthesis of bottlebrush polymers for improved oral drug delivery" Jessica Barry Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology Advisor(s): Angela Birnbaum "Prediction of fetal exposure of anti-seizure medication dosing during pregnancy through the development of physiologically-based models for prediction of lamotrigine exposure" Anu Bompelli Social and Administrative Pharmacy Advisor(s): Angeline Carlson "Postpartum Depression: Racial and Geographical Disparities, Social Determinants, and Healthcare Utilization Patterns in the United States" Michael burns Applied Plant Sciences Advisor(s): Candice Hirsch "Quantifying maize kernel attributes affecting quality in masa-based products" Biostatistics Advisor(s): Weihua Guan, Tianzhong Yang "Statistical Models for Understanding Genetic and Genomic Foundations of Childhood Cancers: A Focus on Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia" sydney Carpentier Rehabilitation Science Advisor(s): Ann Van de Winckel "Development of a Novel Evaluation Scale for Mental Body Representations (MBR) in Adults with Spinal Cord Injury Epidemiology Advisor(s): Erin Marcotte "The effects of policy and neighborhood-level social determinants of health on childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia survival disparities" Seohyeon choi Educational Psychology Advisor(s): Kristen McMaster "Toward the Fair and Valid Use of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing with Struggling Writers From Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds" husrev Cilasun Electrical Engineering Advisor(s): Ulya Karpuzcu "Computing with Spins: The Good, the Bad, and the Odd" Houda cohen Integrative Biology and Physiology Advisor(s): Joseph Metzger, Xavier Revelo "Mechanism of Innate Immunity Activation and Inflammation Onset in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy" Leah Costik Political Science Advisor(s): Tanisha Fazal "Taking Care of Fighters: Rebel Groups and their Provision of Medical Care to Fighters" korbyn Dahlquist Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics Advisor(s): Christina Camell "Cytotoxicity, exhaustion, and immunosenescence in CD8+ T cells during aging" karin de Langis Computer Science Advisor(s): Dongyeop Kang "Cognitively Informed Natural Language Generation" Lang DeLancey Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Advisor(s): Sarah Hobbie, Peter Kennedy "Fungal controls on forest soil carbon storage under climate change" Brylon Denman Chemistry Advisor(s): Courtney Roberts "Inducing Regioselecitivty in Metal-Bound Arynes Reactions via Catalyst Control" Sheetal Digari Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development Advisor(s): Joan DeJaeghere, Bhaskar Upadhyay "Racialized and Sexualized Bodies: Northeastern Indian Students’ Experiences in Higher Educational Institutions" Rashida Doctor Earth Sciences Advisor(s): Joshua Feinberg "Approaches in rock magnetic analysis: Insights into remanence acquisition, sea-level reconstruction, and advancement of techniques" Jolene duda Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics Advisor(s): Stefani Thomas "Histone Deacetylase Proteins as Therapeutic Targets in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer" Alexis Elfstrum Microbiology, Immunology and Cancer Biology Advisor(s): Kaylee Schwertfeger "LYVE-1+ macrophages modulate the extracellular matrix and contribute to mammary tumor growth" Rae Fox-charles Education, Curriculum and Instruction Advisor(s): Betsy Maloney Leaf "The Three Rs: An Intergenerational Exploration of Black Womanhood in Education & Dance" Colin Freilich Psychology Advisor(s): Bob Krueger "Associations between Loneliness, Epigenetic Age Acceleration, and Chronic Physical Health Conditions at Midlife" chloe gansen Mass Communication Advisor(s): Rebekah Nagler "Responses to Politicized News Media Coverage About Health and Science: What is the role of perceived controversy?" Physics Advisor(s): Maxim Pospelov "CP-violating observables within and beyond the Standard Model" Megan Goeke Educational Psychology Advisor(s): David DeLiema "Tree Climbing: Attunement to material contribution during playful climbing" anna Graefe Nursing Advisor(s): Carolyn Porta "Are We Preparing Nursing Students to Address Health Equity? A Mixed Methods Study of Baccalaureate Nursing Programs" bria gresham Child Psychology Advisor(s): Canan Karatekin, Megan Gunnar "How neighborhoods shape health from adolescence to adulthood: An examination of age-varying effects and change over time" Abby Guthmann Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Advisor(s): Craig Packer "Understanding human-wildlife interactions in a shared savanna landscape: impacts of cattle on wild herbivores spatiotemporal dynamics" abigail hall Anthropology Advisor(s): Kieran McNulty "The Ecological Context of Early Ape Evolution" Arshia Zernab Hassan Computer Science Advisor(s): Chad Myers "Computational methods for chemical genetic networks to discover precision cancer drugs" stephanie Heidorn Design Advisor(s): Brad Hokanson "The Effect of Creative Problem Solving Training on Students’ Creative and Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions" martin Herrera Perez Mechanical Engineering Advisor(s): James Van de Ven "Flow and Torque Ripple Reduction in Positive Displacement Pumps and Motors" hopewell hodges Child Psychology Advisor(s): Ann Masten, Bonnie Klimes-Dougan "Resilience Processes in Twin Cities Immigrant and Refugee Children" madeline honig Chemistry Advisor(s): Phillipe Buhlmann "Expanding the Working Ranges and Applications of Ion Selective Electrodes" Computer Science Advisor(s): Zhi-Li Zhang "Domain-Knowledge-Guided Machine Learning for Networked Systems" Kazi Ranjibul islam Physics Advisor(s): Andrey Chubukov "Interplay between nematicity and superconductivity in iron-based high temperature superconductors, application to doped FeSe" Education, Curriculum and Instruction Advisor(s): Vichet Chhuon "The Problematics of Becoming Asian American: Karen Students in U.S. Schools" mariel jones Water Resources Science Advisor(s): Xue Feng "Towards Understanding Coupled Snow and Soil Frost Behavior in Peatland Landscapes" brooke Kern Plant and Microbial Biology Advisor(s): Dave Moeller "The role of mating system transitions in flowering plant speciation" Alireza Khataei Electrical Engineering Advisor(s): Kia Bazargan "Self-Similarity-Based Computing" Daehyun kim Mechanical Engineering Advisor(s): Jeff Tithof "Novel Strategies to Address Neurological Disorders through Numerical Simulation of Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage" Hannah jo King Natural Resources Science and Management Advisor(s): Mae Davenport "Homesteaders to Harvesters: Case Studies in Black and Indigenous Reparative Environmental Justice" lucas kramer Computer Science Advisor(s): Eric Van Wyk "Enabling Practical Modular Language Specifications" sachin kumar Mechanical Engineering Advisor(s): Uwe Kortshagen "Carbon-Free Iron Ore Reduction using Hydrogen Plasma: Towards Green Steel" Yeon Joo lee Business Administration Advisor(s): Karen Donohue "Improving the Sustainability of E-Commerce Logistics through Change in Consumer Behavior" Health Services Research, Policy, and Administration Advisor(s): Eva Enns, Xiao Zang "Optimizing harm reduction services to prevent drug overdose deaths and improve racial/ethnic health equity among people at risk for drug overdose in Minnesota" Computer Science Advisor(s): Yao-Yi Chiang "Spatiotemporal Prediction and Forecasting with Multimodal and Multiscale Data" Anna Mahony Civil Engineering Advisor(s): Bill Arnold "Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) in wastewater and the environment: Quantification and Removal" Sushmita Majumder Materials Science and Engineering Advisor(s): Nathan Mara, Calvin Sun  "Fundamental understanding of mechanical behavior in pharmaceutical crystals for accelerated drug manufacturing" Doneila McIntosh Family Social Science Advisor(s): Chalandra Bryant "African American Bereavement: How Do Youth and Families Navigate Loss?" greta McKeever Theatre Arts Advisor(s): Margaret Werry, Sonali Pahwa "Housewives, Writers, and Communists: Staging Domesticity in Imperial Germany to Make Labor Visible" Kevin McKiernan Asian Literatures, Cultures, and Media Advisor(s): Christine Marran "The Stakes of Tricontinental Cinema: Radical Politics and Aesthetics in the Global 1960s" Hannah Murphy Comparative and Molecular Biosciences Advisor(s): Yuying Liang, Hinh Ly "New Insights into the Biology and Composition of Medically Important Viruses" Sreejith Thampan nair Chemical Engineering Advisor(s): Bharat Jalan "Engineering thin film synthesis and electronic properties of iridium-based oxides" Noah Nathan Kochen Biomedical Engineering Advisor(s): Jonathan Sachs "Investigation of fibril cavity amino acids and small molecules as modulators of selfassembly and toxicity of neurodegeneration-related proteins" kayla nelson Child Psychology Advisor(s): Sylia Wilson, Ann Masten "A Causally- and Genetically-Informed Approach to Depression and Substance Use Comorbidity During Adolescence and the Role of the Parent-Child Relationship" huy Nguyen Chemical Engineering Advisor(s): Matthew Neurock "First-principles Insights into The Catalytic Conversions of CO2 to Value-added Chemicals and Fuels" mary O'Brien McAdaragh Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development Advisor(s): Stuart Yeh "Public Narrative and Its Relationship to Traumatic Stress: Applying Evaluative Thinking and Problem Definition to a Critical Social Issue" Moyosore Orimoloye Medicinal Chemistry Advisor(s): Courtney Aldrich "Chemical Probes for the Identification and Validation of Targets in Mycobacterial Metabolism" matthew pAwlak Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics Advisor(s): Wendy Gordon "The Development and Utilization of High Throughput Methods of Mechanotypying" Taylor Price Plant and Microbial Biology Advisor(s): Trinity Hamilton "Microbial diversity across spatial and temporal scales in high mountain watersheds of the Teton Range, USA" Conservation Sciences Advisor(s): Joseph Bump "Unraveling the Ecological Complexity of Yellowstone's Large Mammal Predator-Prey Dynamics" Viktor Radermacher Earth Sciences Advisor(s): Pete Makovicky "The Macroevolution of the Ornithischian Dental Battery" Mskwaankwad Rice Linguistics Advisor(s): Claire Halpert "Ge-gikendamang Enwewaad Netaa-anishnaabemojig: linguistic analysis of clause type in of Ojibwe language reclamation" angela Ricono Plant and Microbial Biology Advisor(s): Kathleen Greenham "Integrating time of day dynamics into transcriptomic and metabolic networks to improve crop performance" christopher Robertson Sociology Advisor(s): Michelle Phelps "Covenanted-Policing: Policing, Spatial Racism, and Health (In)Equity in Minneapolis, MN" chris seong Chemistry Advisor(s): Courtney Roberts "Advances in Modern and Traditional Methods for Pharmaceutically Relevant C–C and C–N Bond Formation" yuting shan Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology Advisor(s): R. Stephanie Huang "Deciphering Sex Differences in Tumor Progression and Cancer Treatment Response by Studying Intratumoral Microbiome-Host Interactions" jaan Sharma Pathak Geography Advisor(s): Vinay Gidwani, Bruce Braun "A State of Uncertainty: Flood and Erosion Management in the Brahmaputra Valley (India)" anala shetty Molecular, Cellular, Developmental Biology and Genetics Advisor(s): Juan Carlos Rivera-Mulia, Walter Low "Overcoming barriers to organ generation for transplantation therapy through interspecies chimerism" Nikoleta (Nika) sremac Sociology Advisor(s): Joachim Savelsberg, Alejandro Baer "History in Whose Hands? Women's Collective Memory of the Yugoslav Wars in Serbia" Chowdhury Tasnova "Nova" Tahsin Rehabilitation Science Advisor(s): Manda Keller-Ross, Ida Fonkoue "Sympathetic Regulation and Endothelial Function in Postmenopausal Females with Sleep Disturbance" Sneha Venkatachalapathy Chemistry Advisor(s): Mark Distefano "Building the Protein-Drug Revolution" sarah Wahby Public Affairs Advisor(s): Ragui Assaad "The nexus of climate change, migration and conflict in Sudan" elijah wallace History Advisor(s): Andrea Sterk "Saints, Soldiers, and Society in the Late Roman West: Reassessing the End of Empire in Italy and Illyricum" Family Social Science Advisor(s): Stacey Horn "Perceptions and Meaning-Making of Homophobic Language Among Mandarin-Speaking Adolescents" Zijian wang Pharmaceutics Advisor(s): Changquan Sun "Tabeletability Flip of Drugs upon Formulation" dillon williams Biomedical Engineering Advisor(s): David Wood "Defining the mechanics and kinetics of red blood cell sickling in sickle cell disease" murphi williams Chemistry Advisor(s): Ambika Bhagi-Damodaran "Modulating the structure and function of bacterial heme proteins" christopher Winchester Business Administration Advisor(s): Elizabeth Campbell "When Underperformance Means Success: Mixed-Methods Theory-Building & Testing of Strategic Underperformance" Mingzhou yang Computer Science Advisor(s): Shashi Shekhar "Vehicle-Physics-Informed AI for Transportation Science" Tingyuan yang Pharmacology Advisor(s): Ameeta Kelekar "Bcl-2 protein, Noxa, as a Regulator of Proliferative Metabolism and Apoptotic Cell Death in human CD8+ T cells" Siliang zeng Electrical Engineering Advisor(s): Mingyi Hong "Aligning Human and AI Systems: Framework, Algorithm Design and Applications in Large Language Models" Sylvester (Wenze) zhang Mathematics Advisor(s): Pavlo Pylyavskyy "Super Cluster Algebras and Generalized Boson-Fermion Correspondence" Gaonan zhao Mechanical Engineering Advisor(s): Sun Zongxuan "System Modeling and Motion Control for Autonomous Off-road Vehicles" caini Zheng Chemistry Advisor(s): Ilja Siepmann, Tim Lodge "Self-Assembly of Polymers and Amphiphiles into Bicontinuous Phases" About the Grad School Staff Directory Office Locations Our Campuses Twin Cities Mission & Values Strategic Plan Policies & Governance Graduate School Advisory Board Academic Freedom & Responsibility Academic & Career Support GEAR 1 Resource Hub GEAR+ Resource Hub Ask an Expert Graduate School Essentials for Humanities and Social Sciences PhDs Graduate School Essentials for STEM PhDs Transferable Skills Checklist Grad InterCom First Gen Connect Advising & Mentoring Individual Development Plan (IDP) Three-Minute Thesis Application Instructions Application Fees Big 10 Academic Alliance Fee Waiver Program Application Status Official Transcripts & Credentials Unofficial Transcripts & Credentials Recommendation Letters International Student Resources Admissions Guide Change or Add a Degree Objective Readmission Explore Grad Programs Preparing for Graduate School Program Statistics Recruiting Calendar Funding Opportunities Prospective & Incoming Students Diversity of Views & Experience Fellowship (DOVE) National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Current Students Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship Program Distinguished Master's Thesis Competition Diversity Predoctoral Teaching Fellowships Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship Excellence in Teaching Award Fulbright U.S. Student Program Graduate SEED Awards Harold Leonard Memorial Fellowship in Film Study Interdisciplinary Doctoral Fellowship Judd Travel Grants Louise T. Dosdall Endowed Fellowship Mistletoe Fellowship Research Travel Grants Smithsonian Institute Fellowship Torske Klubben Fellowship Program Requests & Nominations Bridging Funds Program Best Dissertation Program Co-Sponsorship Grants Program Google Ph.D. Fellowship National Science Foundation Research Traineeship National Science Foundation Innovations in Graduate Education Program Training Grant Matching Funds Fellowship Dates & Deadlines Information for Staff & Faculty About Graduate Diversity Diverse Student Organizations McNair Scholars Resources About the Community of Scholars Program Graduate Recruitment Ambassadors Program Community of Scholars Program Writing Initiative Faculty & Staff Resources Diversity Recruitment Toolkit Summer Institute Diversity Office Staff What's Happening E-Publications Submit Content News Overview Events Overview 347 COMMENTS Choosing a Thesis Advisor: A Complete Guide Choosing a thesis advisor or dissertation advisor (often referred to as a dissertation chair) will have a significant impact on your entire dissertation writing experience, and for many years to come. For many doctoral students, their thesis advisor is their single greatest influence in graduate school. Selecting a thesis advisor is a big ... PDF Choosing a Thesis Advisor Process 2024; or students doing thesis in Fall 2024 would need to have a thesis advisors by the end of Fall 2023. By default, MArch I students are scheduled to do their theses in the Fall, unless their thesis semester is deferred via "spli ng" or from taking a leave of absence. The default thesis semester for MArch II students, is in the Spring. Doctoral advisor Doctoral advisor. A doctoral advisor (also dissertation director, dissertation advisor; or doctoral supervisor) is a member of a university faculty whose role is to guide graduate students who are candidates for a doctorate, helping them select coursework, as well as shaping, refining and directing the students' choice of sub- discipline in ... PDF Responsibilities of Thesis Advisors 5. The thesis advisor should meet one-on-one with the student on a regular basis. The advisor should provide timely feedback on the student's work to facilitate ongoing progress on the thesis. 6. The thesis advisor should help the graduate student to select a thesis committee. 7. The thesis advisor should provide a learning environment for ... Student and Advisor Responsibilities A thesis is required for all programs leading to a Plan A master's degree, and a dissertation is required for the doctor of philosophy degree. ... Its purpose is to define uniform format standards. The word "thesis" refers to both the thesis and the dissertation unless otherwise noted. Advisor's Responsibility. Dissertation Advisor 101: How To Work With Your Advisor Establish (and stick to) a regular communication cycle. Develop a clear project plan upfront. Be proactive in engaging with problems. Navigate conflict like a diplomat. 1. Clarify roles on day one. Each university will have slightly different expectations, rules and norms in terms of the research advisor's role. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral The importance of the dissertation adviser relationship is clearly recognized in the literature and can be summarized by Barbazon's (2016) statement, "the most important decision a doctoral candidate makes is the selection of supervisor, because they can enable, assist, warn, frame and improve the topic" (p. 16). PDF Choosing a Thesis Advisor In order to make this process as simple and effective as possible, students should keep in mind the following guidelines when choosing and approaching a faculty member to ask them to be their advisors: 1)Have a compelling and well-thought-out thesis proposal. Exciting and detailed proposals are much more likely inspire confidence and interest ... Choosing a thesis advisor: Choose wisely and avoid years of tears in By: Jennifer Casiano Finding the correct thesis adviser can be a bit problematic for first-year graduate students. It is a 5+ year commitment and it needs careful analysis. Finding a strong mentor can be the key to success for a graduate student, in combination with the positive influence of a research area that students are passionate about. Roles and Responsibilities of a Research Advisor A research advisor, often referred to as a thesis or dissertation chair or committee member, is the faculty member that your college or university has designated to lead the work of your thesis or dissertation committee. Specifically, this professor will assume primary responsibility for assisting you throughout the research process, and this ... PDF Choosing a Thesis Advisor members. Students should consider having one primary advisor and consulting with other faculty members unofficially. * For example, students completing thesis in the Spring 2020, would need to have thesis advisors by the end of Spring 2019; or students doing thesis in Fall 2020 would need to have a thesis advisor by the end of Fall 2019. Finding a Thesis Advisor Finding a Thesis Advisor. Choosing an advisor is a critical decision you will face in graduate school. It is normal to sometimes feel overwhelmed by this choice. Still, there are many specific things you can do to make the process less stressful. It is hard to give general advice, because every student is different. What's the difference? Understanding the roles between your thesis One of the questions students often have is: what are the differences (if any) between the thesis advisor, chair and reviewer? In this video, I look at some ... Advising Guide for Research Students : Graduate School Work with your advisor to define a regular meeting schedule. Prepare and send written materials in advance of each meeting. These could include: your questions, academic and research plan and timeline, and drafts of current writing projects, such as fellowship applications, manuscripts, or thesis/dissertation chapters. PDF Examining Thesis Advisers' Profile and their Undergraduate ... The thesis adviser is responsible for supervising the research, and directing the writing and seeing to it that the thesis meets the appropriate scholarly standard [1]. A mentor is someone who supports the mentees advance their professional career, sincerely assisting in their educational and personal success [13]. ... 3.3.1 Academic Advising: Policy The principal dissertation advisor (also called thesis advisor or research advisor), who must be a member of the Academic Council, establishes a critically important relationship with the doctoral student. ... Interdisciplinary program approval of an advisor outside the department is automatic, since by definition IDPs only have affiliated ... Duties and Responsibilities of the Graduate Adviser Graduate advisers formally approve students' programs of study, advise them on advancement to candidacy for higher degrees, consider their petitions to change majors, to add or drop courses, to apply for readmission, etc. In all of these matters, the adviser or the advisement team must judge whether the student's request is in order, is in ... What Is a Dissertation? A dissertation is a long-form piece of academic writing based on original research conducted by you. It is usually submitted as the final step in order to finish a PhD program. Your dissertation is probably the longest piece of writing you've ever completed. It requires solid research, writing, and analysis skills, and it can be intimidating ... Adviser Definition & Meaning The meaning of ADVISER is someone who gives advice. How to use adviser in a sentence. ... In December, she and her thesis advisor, Neal Evans, used the camera, attached to a 50-inch telescope, to look for infant stars in a giant molecular cloud in the constellation Orion. ... Post the Definition of adviser to Facebook Facebook. Advisor vs. Adviser Revised on August 23, 2023. Advisor and adviser are different spellings of the same word. Both are considered acceptable spellings, though there is some regional variation. Adviser is the original and more commonly used spelling. It is sometimes considered more informal. Advisor is also considered a correct spelling. What does thesis advisor mean? Definition of thesis advisor in the Definitions.net dictionary. Meaning of thesis advisor. Information and translations of thesis advisor in the most comprehensive dictionary definitions resource on the web. Thesis Advisor Definition Examples of Thesis Advisor in a sentence. The Research or Thesis Advisor will be paid $300 per student for the semester during which he/she is overseeing the research/thesis project.. By Vishnu Xxxx Xxxxx B.D.S., Manipal University, 2015 Emory University, 2019 Faculty Thesis Advisor: Xxxxxxx X.. The Research or Thesis Advisor will be paid $350 per student for the semester during which he/she ... Graduate Thesis Advisor Definition Related to Graduate Thesis Advisor. graduate psychiatric nurse means a person whose name is entered on the register of graduate psychiatric nurses of the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Manitoba. The terms of this Agreement shall be applicable to the graduate nurse, the graduate practical nurse, graduate psychiatric nurse, and graduate nurse practitioner, except as otherwise ... Interdisciplinary Major The PST thesis, of about 80-100 pages, is written over the course of the fourth year. Working with a faculty advisor, students define a topic and engage in serious research, often using primary source materials. The thesis is due on March 31, followed in late April by a full day conference at which students present their completed work. 2024-2025 Doctoral Dissertation Fellows Advisor(s): Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos "Efficient Robotic Automation Leveraging Optimal Visual and Language Information" Kaylee Barr. Chemical Engineering Advisor(s): Theresa Reineke, Frank Bates "Design and synthesis of bottlebrush polymers for improved oral drug delivery" Jessica Barry. Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology Advisor(s): Angela ... assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech