how to choose your phd supervisor

Choosing a PhD Supervisor

Written by Ben Taylor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding an expert in your field

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

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

There are several ways to do this:

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

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

Who can supervise a PhD student?

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

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

Contacting a PhD supervisor

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

How to choose a PhD supervisor

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

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

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

What are the qualities of a good PhD supervisor?

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

#1 Substantial research expertise

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

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

#2 Clear about their career plans

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

#3 Previous experience as a PhD supervisor

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

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

#4 Personality

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

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

#5 Organisational skills

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

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

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

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

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

PhD supervisor guide

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

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

Select your nearest city

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

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

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

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

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

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

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

How to choose the right PhD supervisor

4 red flags to be wary of in the search for a good match.

Gemma Conroy

Credit: Thomas Barwick/Getty

23 June 2020

Thomas Barwick/Getty

A PhD supervisor can make or break a candidate’s progress. It’s estimated that roughly half of all PhD candidates in North America do not complete their doctoral studies due to a lack of support from their supervisor.

“It’s a decision that should be taken very seriously,” says Anna Sverdlik, an educational psychologist at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada.

“This is the person you could be working with for several years and it can shape who you are as an academic.”

Below are four tips that can help PhD candidates choose a suitable supervisor , and the red flags to watch out for:

1. Interview the supervisor

While most candidates focus on trying to impress a prospective supervisor, Emma Beckett took the opposite approach when she was choosing between institutions for her PhD.

“I approached each meeting as if I were interviewing the supervisor, and not the other way around,” says Beckett, a molecular nutrition scientist at the University of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia.

“Forget the power dynamic and remember it’s about what’s best for your development.”

Asking the right questions can give students a better sense of whether a supervisor is the best match for them, says Sverdlik, who studies motivation and wellbeing in doctoral students.

“Talk to them and see what kind of person they are,” she says. “Students are often too grateful when someone shows an interest, and this puts them at a disadvantage.”

Red flag: If a potential supervisor is difficult to pin down for a meeting, they are unlikely to treat their students as a priority down the line, says Beckett.

2. Get an outside perspective

Reaching out to former students, collaborators, and lab members can be a good way of forming an accurate view of a supervisor’s reputation, says Gerard Dericks from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom, who studies PhD student satisfaction.

“You want to do a mini background check, as it’s difficult to tell how honest a researcher is during an interview.”

Speaking with former co-authors can also give candidates a better idea of how collaborative a supervisor is and how well their skills and research interests match, says Dericks.

Paying attention to how colleagues interact with the supervisor can also prevent candidates from entering a toxic situation.

Beckett says she experienced this first-hand at a lab meet-and-greet session when she was searching for a postdoc position. “Multiple students came knocking on the principal investigator’s door in tears,” she recalls. “That’s definitely a bad sign.”

Red flag: If a supervisor seems to prefer working alone or doesn’t include students as co-authors on their papers, it’s unlikely that they will help the candidate build their resumes, says Sverdlik.

3. Look beyond the PhD

Candidates should look for a supervisor who can help them develop the skills they need to progress in their career after completing their PhD, says Beckett.

“Too many students get caught up in the PhD topic or project, but it’s about building skills that can help you pivot into what you want to do next,” she says. “The outcome of a PhD is not about output, but who you are as a scientist.”

Sverdlik says that candidates should discuss professional development opportunities with potential supervisors, such as writing workshops , training in advanced statistics, and research integrity seminars.

Red flag: Too much emphasis on publishing papers can be a sign that the potential supervisor lacks integrity and isn’t focussed on helping their students’ skill development, says Beckett.

4. Consider the supervisor’s working style

Rather than choosing a supervisor for their prestige and research interests, Beckett says candidates should pay attention to the workplace culture and how things run day-to-day.

This can mean discussing expectations before committing to a potential supervisor, such as working hours, meeting frequency, and how the supervisor tracks their candidates’ progress, she says.

“Some students like to be micromanaged, while others prefer to do things in their own time,” says Beckett. “Finding out whether your day-to-day controls and procedures are compatible is a way of understanding their ‘big picture’ ethos without actually asking.”

Red flag: Prospective supervisors who expect candidates to work on weekends or be on-call outside of working hours are likely to be more interested in a student’s productivity than their growth and development, says Beckett.

Sign up to the Nature Index newsletter

Get regular news, analysis and data insights from the editorial team delivered to your inbox.

Sign up to receive the Nature Index newsletter. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy .

Interesting
Scholarships
UGC-CARE Journals

Choosing a PhD supervisor? 9 Key Factors to Consider

10 Tips to Select PhD Supervisor

PhD supervisor is the most powerful person in any PhD scholar’s academic career. From the beginning of the research to the end, a good supervisor plays different roles like mentor, advisor, and cheerleader. A scholar gains confidence in research only through his/her supervisor. Therefore, it’s important to make a wise choice in choosing a supervisor for the successful completion of your PhD program. In this article, iLovePhD listed the nine key factors when you choosing a PhD supervisor.

“A good teacher knows how to bring out the best in a student!!” Charles Kuralt

Selecting a PhD supervisor is one of the most crucial and difficult decisions for a young researcher to make. Your decision will be influenced by the subject area you wish to carry out your work. Remember, when you are pursuing your research, there will be extreme highs and extreme lows throughout your PhD, so you should try to choose a supervisor with whom you can collaborate effectively during challenging circumstances.

How will you choose your PhD supervisor depends on whether you’re applying for an R&D-funded project or putting forward your research proposal.

9 Key Factors to Choose a PhD Supervisor / Guide / Advisor

1. r&d funded project or own research proposal.

If you’re applying for an R&D-funded project , the process of choosing a supervisor is simple.
Usually, they will be the principal investigator of the project, you can join as a JRF ie., Junior Research Fellow in the project to do the project work, and at the same time you can use this data to get your PhD degree, provided the principal investigator of the project and your research supervisor should be the same.
The advantages of working in the funded project are that you will get the complete roadmap of your work at the initial stage of your PhD and you will get the fellowship during the project period.
On the other hand, if you’re proposing your research proposal, you have to do some groundwork to choose a supervisor whose research interests align with your interests.
You have to be clear in your area of research and should have a rough idea of what you want your PhD topic to be.
In this way, you can narrow down the potential supervisors by research interests and then focus on those who have expertise in your area of research.

2. Check Scientific Databases

It will give you lots of data with which you can refine your search.

This allows you to look for the most cited articles and thus helps you to choose who the leading researchers are.

3. Career stage of your potential supervisor

Then look for the career stage of your supervisor.
A professor at the beginning of their career might have fewer professional commitments and therefore they find more time to supervise you.
A senior professor may have a busy professional life – but this could be counter-balanced by their expertise and experience.

4. Check Recent Publications

Let us assume that you have short-listed 10 professors, now you need to check for their publications and give more importance to their recent publications so that you will get to know about the current research works going on under their supervision.

5. Prior Meeting

Once you’ve done your search for a supervisor and have a clear idea of your proposed research topic, you should make a shortlist of around three potential supervisors to contact.

Make sure that you understand their academic background and current projects so that you can make an excellent first impression when you get in touch with them.

6. During the meeting

If you’re able to meet your potential supervisor and discuss your research proposal, you need to have a good research plan of what you want to achieve with your PhD research.

Meeting them in person is a great way of gauging their personality and your chemistry.

You are going to work with them for a minimum of three years, so you can make sure you are going to get on with them.

Also, it’s good to know the other details like If they’re planning to retire or change institution, because that could affect your research later down the line.

You should have a supervisor who is going to stick around for the duration of your PhD.

7. Status of Current PhD Scholars

Find out what sort of research work the supervisor is currently involved in.
You can normally see a list of current research scholars on the department website.
You can get feedback from them regarding the supervisor’s methodology of guidance.

8. Research Facilities and Funding

Check for research facilities available in the department or Centre.
Make sure that the laboratories are equipped with the state-of-the-art instrumentation and equipment facilities needed to carry out your research.
Check whether the institution or the department has a well-established library facility to access reputed and peer-reviewed publications and e-journals.
Check for any fellowships available in the department/University for PhD research .

9. Collaboration

Depending on your preferences, you can decide whether you want to work within a small, specialized department or a larger team that allows more scope for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Some of you may want to carry out PhD program under the part-time category. In this case, you need to get NOC ie., a No Objection Certificate from the organization where you work. If your organization permits you, you can register your PhD in the University you want to do. You may have to choose a co-supervisor or a joint supervisor. And he/she may be your head of the organization. Also, ensure that your organization is registered as a research center under that University. Otherwise, they need to sign a MoU. These procedures depend on the University guidelines and it may vary from one University to another. So, you need to be aware of all these details too.

Now that you know how to choose a good supervisor for your PhD. You will be spending a lot of time with them during your PhD, so it pays to understand what to look for in-terms of personality traits, expertise, and experience. There are many supervisors out there, and it is always feasible to choose supervisor with whom you can work well and produce a good research. Ultimately, you need to get your PhD degree. So, it’s a decision that should be taken very seriously.

Happy Researching!

Bonus: Secret Tips in Choosing a PhD supervisor?

iLovePhD has stated some of the secret tips for choosing a good supervisor to do PhD:

PhD supervisor should be an expert in your area of research. Check for the supervisor’s recent publications.
Prepare a project proposal or some specific research ideas clearly before contacting your supervisor.
Talk with the experts about your research interest in person before finalizing the one who is going to supervise you.
Talk with the scholars who are working currently under the professor/expert.
Check the research facilities (Library, Instrumentation, access to journals) available in the department.
Also, check for fellowships/scholarships available in the department/University. Check for R&D project with supervisor to carry out Ph.D. with fellowship.
Talk to other students who have already worked with the potential supervisor to get an honest review of their experience.
Look for supervisors with an active research program that interests you.
Consider the supervisor’s availability and how accessible they will be for guidance and support.
Look for someone with the knowledge and experience relevant to your intended research field.
Explore whether the supervisor has funding for new projects, as this may impact your ability to conduct research.
Ask yourself if you think the supervisor is someone you can connect with and can trust.
Find out if the supervisor is willing and able to attend conferences and workshops, as this could provide networking opportunities.
Ask if the supervisor’s institution offers resources that may be beneficial to your research and development, such as a library, laboratories, or computing facilities.
Make sure to understand the requirements of the supervisory team, and if applicable, any co-supervisors, before accepting an appointment.
Learn about the expectations and requirements of the supervisor so that you can determine if you are comfortable working with them.

In conclusion, a PhD is not just a degree, it’s a process of understanding your research area. Therefore, it’s a scholar’s responsibility to choose a good supervisor for their research career.

All The Best!

Follow us on Pinterest: iLovePhD

Also, Read Top 38 Possible PhD Viva Questions How to Become an Academic Journal Reviewer?|Step by Step Guide

Academic Research
choosing a PhD supervisor
how to be a good phd supervisor
How to Choose a PhD Guide
How to Choose a PhD Supervisor
PhD Admission
PhD Supervisor
phd supervisor responsibilities

10 Types of Plagiarism – Every Academic Writer Should Know – Updated

The harsh reality: why revoked graduate degrees aren’t easily reclaimed, top 50 research institutions in india: nirf rankings 2024.

[…] How to Choose a PhD Supervisor? […]

Mail Subscription

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

Google News

Artificial intelligence

The PhD journey: how to choose a good supervisor

By Matthew Killeya

20 February 2008

New Scientist. Science news and long reads from expert journalists, covering developments in science, technology, health and the environment on the website and the magazine.

Shared interests are the building blocks of your relationship

“Choosing a supervisor is tricky because you don’t know much about them until you start working with them,” says Lewis Wolpert, professor of biology at University College London. “Instead, start by choosing a problem that interests you – it’s easier to do and just as important.”

“It might sound obvious,” says Jim Hough, director of the Institute for Gravitational Research at the University of Glasgow, “but it’s amazing how many students don’t do that.”

John Cowpe, a second-year PhD student from the University of Salford, agrees. “To get the most from your supervisor, you have to be interested in what they do. My supervisor will leap at any chance to discuss – often at great length – a topic he’s passionate about. You learn just as much from anecdotal chatting as you do from your own research.”

A good supervisor says all the right things

Your supervisor will be a mentor, friend, confidante, adviser and also a voice of reason, so make sure it’s a voice you’ll want to hear. “Over the course of three years, it’s crucial to have someone who can encourage you when your experiments fall flat, challenge you when you become cocky and help steer you towards successfully submitting your thesis,” says broadcaster and writer Simon Singh, who did a PhD in particle physics at the University of Cambridge.

“It’s crucial to have someone who can challenge you when you become cocky”

Choose a supervisor who excites you

It is essential to find a supervisor you believe in and whose work you find exciting, says Susan Greenfield, professor of physiology at the University of Oxford. “Scientists are made up of all types of people – thinkers, dreamers, practical workers – all of whom are important, but you need to find someone who thinks in the same way that you do.”

You’ll see many of your peers going to the City and into industry, earning much higher salaries than you, and who also seem to have more time off, says Greenfield, “so it’s vital that you have a real passion and belief in your work”.

Supervisors can be stereotyped – pick your favourite

So says David Hand, professor of mathematics at Imperial College London. “At one extreme, there are the most eminent senior academics with considerable experience. Their reputation and influence can rub off and they can introduce you to other big names, but they may not be able to give you as much of their time as is desirable.”

At the other extreme is the junior academic, says Hand. While they have less experience, they have more time to spend on your project. This is an important factor to consider, says Vivienne Raper, a recent PhD graduate from the University of Bristol. “If you’re not at your most motivated, an absent or distant PhD supervisor can be a recipe for months of procrastination.”

Another option is to choose a supervisor close to retirement, suggests second-year PhD student Stefan Rohrmoser from the University of Southampton. “They are more likely to have a relaxed attitude, as they’ve seen it all before. Their students won’t be running blindfolded into an overly ambitious project. They will be given interesting work which their supervisor knows is going to provide enough results to comfortably finish a PhD.”

Personal chemistry is important

Once you’ve found a supervisor you’d like to work with, go and meet them, says Greenfield. “The real issue is to see whether the chemistry is right,” she says. “Think about whether your prospective supervisor seems like the sort of person who will be there when you need them.”

While you’re visiting potential supervisors, try to meet some of their current students as well as other colleagues in their group. “I always tell PhD candidates to talk to my students,” says Carolyn Stephens, senior lecturer in international environmental health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “They know things about me that I don’t know myself.”

You can get a real feel for the mood of a department by chatting to current PhD students, agrees Singh. “Buy them a coffee and a doughnut, and ask them if they enjoy being part of the research group.”

See a variety of people

If you have the opportunity to sample different supervisors at the beginning of your PhD, definitely take it, says Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin. “That gives you more time to work out who you would work best with.”

Research councils are also starting to move towards multidisciplinary projects, which means you might get to work with more than one team, says Stephens. “There’s a lot of encouragement to cross boundaries between disciplines. If this is the case, make sure your supervisor is willing to put you in touch with scientists from other subjects.”

You will also find help from those closer to home. “Remember that on a day-to-day basis you will spend more time working with students and postdocs than your supervisor,” says Hough. “So it’s important that there’s a good social environment. Usually that means a reasonable-sized group.” This was important for Singh: “Being surrounded by postdocs, lecturers and other postgraduates willing to advise and guide me was invaluable.”

Keep channels of communication free from static

If you feel like your supervisor is talking in a foreign language, don’t panic. “Often in one-to-one meetings, you will understand what your supervisor says at a basic level, but will only have a good grasp of the implications and ramifications towards the end of your PhD,” says Hand. “Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you don’t understand,” agrees Gigerenzer. “Openness is key.”

Prepare to take the reins

“A PhD is part apprenticeship and part equal partner. Ideally, the balance between these two modes shifts to the latter as time goes on,” says John Krebs, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford. “It’s a bit like learning to ride a bike,” says Greenfield. “You start off on the back of your mother’s bike. Then you get your own tricycle, then a two-wheeled bike with stabilisers. Finally your stabilisers are removed.”

Science shouldn’t be too safe; you shouldn’t be too protected, she says. “Being trained to cope with failure is one of the most important parts of your PhD. If you don’t know failure, then you’re not being stretched enough.” That said, you will reach the point where you know more than your supervisor about a specific aspects of your research. “This should certainly be your goal,” says Gigerenzer.

It is vital that you don’t compare yourself with other PhD students, says Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics at the University of Surrey. “Students can get frustrated if they feel they are not making progress at the same rate as others, but your progress depends on so many factors. Some students publish many papers, others only a few. Some will quickly churn out results while many don’t feel ready to carry out original research.” This should not concern you, says Al-Khalili. “There is no standard formula for how research should be done.”

Carlos Alegria can appreciate this fact better than most, having completed not one but two PhDs, first in physics and then in finance. “Each was unique and you have to accept that there isn’t one single rule that everybody can follow,” he says. Stephens agrees: “A PhD is an incredibly personal journey. Be prepared for it to raise all sorts of personal issues about whether you’re up to it.”

Give as much as you take

The later stages of a PhD are when students contribute the most to their field of research, but you should try to make yourself indispensable as early as possible in the process, says Gigerenzer. You will acquire specific skills very quickly. These can prove useful if you find yourself able to help out when your supervisor is under pressure, he says. “It’s like children who find they can do something better than their parents – wonderful.”

You also have a unique perspective as a fresh face, says Gigerenzer. “A newcomer has a better chance of seeing holes in an idea than those who have been immersed in a project for a long time. Any discipline can be improved, and an outsider’s perspective can help.”

It’s a love-hate thing

“People often end up hating their supervisor at some point,” says Stephens. “I usually expect my students to hate me somewhere in the middle of their PhD.”

“I usually expect my students to hate me somewhere near the middle of their PhD”

“At the beginning of your relationship you don’t know each other well, so things are usually cordial,” he explains. “Then you move towards respecting your supervisor, then to not respecting them at all. Finally you break away and begin critiquing your supervisor and their work.”

A fluid relationship means that if you don’t click with each other from the start, it’s not a disaster. But if your relationship really isn’t working, universities usually have ways to rearrange supervisors, says Stephens. “Quite often it’s a mutual decision – the student’s research interest might change. It’s not looked upon as a bad thing.”

Get more out of your relationship than a good degree

“Immediately after my first PhD, I thought the most important thing I took from my supervisor was technical knowledge,” says Alegria. “Now it is clear to me that I learned much more. Even rejected papers, negative feedback and personal problems can all add up to an invaluable lesson in life.”

“My graduate adviser became a close friend immediately and we’ve stayed close for 30 years now,” says Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard University. “Several of my former students also remain close friends. Two of them were the official witnesses at my wedding.”

Careers – Find out how to make the most of your career in our comprehensive special report .

Storm warning

In 2006, Juma Almaskari completed a PhD in atmospheric numerical modelling at the University of Leeds. Just a few months later, Almaskari used the techniques he had developed as part of a team which successfully predicted the landfall of Gonu, a tropical cyclone that was heading over Muscat, the capital of Oman. His calculations prompted the Omani government to take immediate action, potentially saving thousands of lives.

Why did you choose to do a PhD?

I was working for the Omani Meteorological Department when the implementation of a numerical weather forecasting model prompted the need for some local knowledge in numerical weather predictions. This was when I was nominated for my PhD.

What were the best bits?

The overall feeling of achievement and also the experience you get by meeting so many scientists in your field.

And the worst bits?

Getting some odd results from your models which you can’t explain. This isn’t unusual when doing a PhD, but the hold-up can make you panic, especially towards the end.

Any tips for those thinking about doing a PhD?

As someone who came from overseas, I didn’t get to meet with my supervisor before starting my PhD, but if you have the chance, make sure you do. I would also advise students to continually discuss their work with other people in their field – not just their supervisor.

Words of wisdom

“…Check how big your supervisor is in their field. A supervisor who is respected and has lots of connections will potentially be able to draw in help from elsewhere if it’s needed.”

Russell McLaughlin, first-year PhD student at Trinity College, Dublin

“…Make sure that what your supervisor expects from you suits your own work ethic.”

Emily Burden, second-year PhD student at the University of Birmingham

“…Schedule one-to-one meetings at least once a month, even if you see your supervisor every day. It’s all too easy to feel like you’re keeping up to date when in fact you’re on a different page altogether.”

Carolynn Dude, final-year PhD student at the University of Cambridge

Jungle fever

Elizabeth Pimley completed her PhD in the depths of the Cameroon rainforest, studying the behaviour and ecology of bushbabies and pottos. Communicating with her supervisor by letter and the occasional fax, Pimley struggled with cultural differences, loneliness and even witchcraft, just to follow her love of research.

I thought it sounded like a great project. I had wanted the chance to carry out my own research on these secretive animals in a fascinating and novel country.

Living and working in a beautiful rainforest, surrounded by such intriguing primates, and carrying out my own research. It was also amazing to live with people who still practised witchcraft.

I found that working in a small, remote village with people of a different culture to me could be quite lonely at times. And although Cameroon was a beautiful country, it was plagued by corruption. You often came across road blocks managed by the police, who would find ways to extract money from passing motorists.

If you have a burning desire to do your own research and don’t mind spending a few more years earning a fairly small salary, don’t let a fear of the unknown stop you.

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

1 in 5 people in a coma may be aware of their surroundings

Top astrobiologist explores the possibilities of alien life

Subscriber-only

Don't disrespect Alan Turing by reanimating him with AI

In the village of Tshabula, villagers search for cobalt and copper in the waste tailings dumped by the lorries of the Chinese company Commus, which extracts minerals from one of the town's largest open-cast mines.

Dramatic images show the dark side of cobalt mining boom

Your browser is unsupported

We recommend using the latest version of IE11, Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Graduate College

Top tips for choosing a phd supervisor.

Özge Özden lays out the pros and cons you need to consider when choosing a supervisor, as well as five key qualities to look out for

Selecting a PhD supervisor is one of the most crucial – and difficult – decisions a young researcher will have to make. And while there is no failsafe method of choosing one, your decision will undoubtedly be influenced by the subject in which you intend to work, the sort of research you wish to do and your checklist of goals for your PhD.

It is unwise to dismiss the importance of any personality traits that you think may make a relationship with a supervisor difficult. Remember that, when doing research, there will be extreme highs and extreme lows throughout the duration of your PhD studies, so you should try to choose a supervisor with whom you can collaborate effectively during challenging circumstances. There are many supervisors out there, and it is almost always feasible to find someone with whom you can work well and produce a good research project.

Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors
Tips for new PhD supervisors: how to hold effective meetings
Bullying by supervisors is alive and well – now is the time to tackle it

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

Numerous PhD students criticise their adviser/s and, due to unstable supervisor-student interactions, end up dropping out. Ineffective and uncooperative supervisors may cause a lot of research students to feel quite uncomfortable. This is doubly important given that 32 per cent of PhD candidates are at risk of developing or already suffer from depression.

The ideas and opinions of your adviser are very important when you choose your doctoral research topic. If a doctoral student works on a subject that always arouses their curiosity and excites them then their discoveries will also often be interesting and they will be more likely to succeed. Of course, if the doctoral supervisor is interested in the subject chosen by their student, then that supervisor will be able to guide their student better.

In my opinion, the key difficulty with completing a PhD is not so much found academically, rather the process is incredibly difficult psychologically and emotionally. And there is added emotional weight if you are pursuing a PhD in a foreign nation far from your home, family and friends. As a result, selecting a good, friendly PhD supervisor is critical for engendering a healthy, long-term educational programme in which you are supported psychologically and emotionally.

What are the qualities of a good supervisor?

1. Effective communicator

Let’s assume you have a supervisor, but it’s still early days and you still have time to leave his or her domain. If you don’t receive a response to your emails from them within a fair amount of time, you need to discuss this. Always talk first, but if it continues you might seriously think about switching supervisors, because if you end up with one who ignores your emails and/or social media communications, such inactivity will always end up causing you issues, either directly or indirectly. An ideal supervisor should reply to your emails and messages promptly, even those sent via WhatsApp or other messaging apps, and offer helpful criticism.

2. Passionate

An excellent supervisor is passionate about the work of their pupils. They should be someone who is inspiring and uplifting, who helps their students reach new heights. Someone is not a good supervisor if they lack enthusiasm and interest in their role as your mentor and do not offer verbal encouragement.

3. Knowledgeable

Your supervisor ought to be informed and skilled in your area of study and have top-notch study methods and data analysis skills. If they do not, there is a higher probability you will experience difficulties with your academic studies.

4. Supportive of your career

You should try to choose a supervisor who has a demonstrable history of assisting students in launching their careers. Typically, a good supervisor would introduce pupils to his or her co-workers and let PhD students know about any seminars or conferences that are pertinent to their field of study and future plans. Additionally, a competent supervisor should encourage future partnerships once their student’s PhD studies are finished and make the publishing of their research products easier.

In order to support their academic careers, some faculty members who are not actively engaged in research take on PhD or masters students. How can you determine if they are active or not is the question. For a start, try looking up the potential supervisor’s research articles on Google Scholar, ResearchGate or other academic websites.

One of the most important aspects to consider when it comes to supervisors is their previous track record. Feel free to enquire how many research fellows or PhD students they have previously educated and what those fellows went on to achieve. How many went on to become successful academics? Finally, remember that it is usually helpful to spend some time working with your potential supervisor voluntarily before making your final decision.

Above all, remember that this is a significant choice; you should not make it without careful consideration.

Özge Özden is the dean of the faculty of agriculture at Near East University, North Cyprus, where she has been working since 2012.

Original post: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/top-tips-choosing-phd-supervisor

Community Blog

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

What Makes A Good PhD Supervisor?

By Dr Harry Hothi
August 12, 2020

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

Introduction

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

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

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

The Role of a PhD Supervisor

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

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

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

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

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

Qualities to Look For in A Good PhD Supervisor

1. a track record of successful phd student supervision.

Good PhD Supervisor taking students to Completion

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

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

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

2. Is an Expert in their Field of Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Has Enough Time to Provide Good PhD Supervision

PhD Supervisor should have enought time to see you

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

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

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

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

4. Is a Good Mentor with a Supportive Personality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips for New Graduate Teaching Assistants at University

Being a new graduate teaching assistant can be a scary but rewarding undertaking – our 7 tips will help make your teaching journey as smooth as possible.

Scientific misconduct can be described as a deviation from the accepted standards of scientific research, study and publication ethics.

The term monotonic relationship is a statistical definition that is used to describe the link between two variables.

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

Browse PhDs Now

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

This article will answer common questions about the PhD synopsis, give guidance on how to write one, and provide my thoughts on samples.

Prof Raghupathi gained his PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1991. He is now a professor in the Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy at Drexel University College of Medicine.

Ellie is a final year PhD student at the University of Hertfordshire, investigating a protein which is implicated in pancreatic cancer; this work can improve the efficacy of cancer drug treatments.

Join Thousands of Students

Log in
Site search

Choosing your PhD supervisor

After deciding on a topic for your Doctoral research project, it's now time to find a PhD supervisor - take the time to make the right choice, as they'll become crucial to your academic future

Most PhD students' choice of university is heavily influenced by the opportunity to work alongside a particular academic, as they're the person who'll have the biggest impact on your studies.

While it's possible to apply to an institution without contacting a potential supervisor beforehand, this approach can greatly diminish your chances of Doctoral success.

PhD candidates in many social sciences and arts and humanities subjects are encouraged to actively seek expert academics in their field prior to applying. However, some research projects - particularly those in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects tied to a PhD studentship - already have a supervisor allocated.

How do I find a PhD supervisor?

You should identify academics actively researching in your field by:

approaching lecturers working within your current or potential department, as these individuals may be able to recommend supervisors
browsing articles, publications and blogs relevant to your project, identifying the most commonly cited researchers
reading recently submitted PhD dissertations within your research area, noting the supervisor used.

Once you've compiled a shortlist of individuals, visit their online academic profiles - for example, their page on the university website or their own website/blog. You can also follow their social media activity on Twitter (X), Facebook and LinkedIn.

This will signpost you to the articles, blogs, books and reports they've contributed to, plus any exhibitions, public engagement work or PhD research they've participated in - allowing you to decide whether they're a suitable fit, academically speaking.

How do I approach a potential supervisor?

You can then approach your selected potential supervisor (or several, if you're still deciding) with a tailored, well-written and passionate email. Make a positive first impression by:

attaching your academic CV
avoiding overstatements or vague generalisations, while keeping your message clear and concise
conveying your skills and knowledge by introducing your academic background and the field you intend to research
referring to the academic by their correct title
showing your familiarity with and interest in the academic's work
letting them know about any funding you're applying for.

Conclude your message by asking whether you could visit them in person, or at the very least speak over the phone or via Skype/Zoom/Teams. If you receive no response within two weeks, send a follow-up email.

Don't take any rejection personally. The academic may simply be too busy, already supervising several PhD students, or unsure whether your project is suitable.

How do I make a good impression?

If an academic agrees to meet you, they'll want to know whether you have the passion, tenacity and academic potential to complete a PhD.

You can also display your enthusiasm by asking your supervisor relevant questions, such as:

How far do you see your responsibilities towards me extending?
How much time would you have for me, and how often would we meet?
What arrangements, if any, would be in place for a second supervisor?
What characteristics do you feel successful PhD students have?
What do you expect from the students you supervise?
What funding and additional support is available at this institution?
What is your opinion of my research topic and proposed methodology?
What things should I do to supplement my PhD?

What qualities does a good supervisor possess?

Before deciding whether a PhD supervisor is right for you and applying to your chosen institution, you should be certain that the individual is:

not intending to leave the institution permanently or go on sabbatical during your PhD
of a similar personality and working style to you
reliable and approachable, with a strong track record of supervising PhD students
someone you're inspired by and proud to associate with
sufficiently interested in and enthusiastic about your project to commit three to four years of their guidance, support and encouragement
up to date in their knowledge of the latest findings and publications within your field and has strong connections within the world of academia.

How do I develop a positive relationship with my supervisor?

Your PhD supervisor will become your primary referee once you've graduated. Forging a strong relationship with them can greatly improve your chances of securing a postdoctoral job .

You can make a positive impression by performing many of the extra tasks expected of you - for example, teaching undergraduates, mentoring other postgraduates and representing the university at research conferences.

The University of Leicester recommends that you should also:

be open and honest
display independence and an ability to manage problems
maintain regular contact
meet agreed deadlines
show a positive and professional attitude
understand your mutual responsibilities and expectations
use your supervisor's advice and feedback.

What can my supervisor help me with?

Unlike at Bachelors and Masters degree level, your supervisor isn't necessarily an expert in your specific field of study. You'll quickly know more about your research topic than they do - so you must appreciate that they may not have the answer to all your problems.

Indeed, your relationship with your supervisor will evolve as you become less dependent on their support. They will initially focus on helping you to produce quality research, but quickly shift their attention to reviewing your findings and assisting your professional development.

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

Some supervisors dedicate far more time to students than they're required to, while some prefer not to become too involved in their students' research. However, you shouldn't stay silent if you feel like things aren't working out - especially if you're studying a STEM subject, where your supervisor is often effectively your research collaborator.

It's for this reason you should spend plenty of time finding the right academic before enrolling, as changing your supervisor should be the last resort, unless your topic has significantly shifted in the initial months of study.

Before taking any action, assess the situation and go through the reasons why you're contemplating this change once you've already started working on your thesis. Is this down to compatibility or communication issues? Do you have opposing research interests?

If you do wish to pursue this course of action, bear in mind that the process can be complex and needs to be handled in the right way - with care and consideration. Also, the following process may not be the same at all universities.

How do I change my PhD supervisor?

In the first instance, you should speak with your lead supervisor. Explain to them about your concerns and what you feel are the most important factors for this request. Try to see if there's a way to overcome these issues and redefine your working relationship. Is any additional support available?

If things have reached a point where you're not comfortable approaching members of your supervisory team, another option would be to contact your mentor. If you're unsure who this would be, your school's postgraduate research administrator should be able to point you in the right direction.

After discussing this with a member of staff, you'll typically need to request a change of supervisor through your department's postgraduate research lead - the academic lead responsible for these matters. They should be able to authorise a supervisor change and propose suitable alternatives, if you don't already have one in mind. You'll then be guided through the formal process of changing your supervisor.

Find out more

Explore funding postgraduate study .
Discover 5 challenges faced by PhD students .
Consider getting an academic job .

How would you rate this page?

On a scale where 1 is dislike and 5 is like

Dislike 1 unhappy-very
Like 5 happy-very

Thank you for rating the page

How to Choose Your PhD Supervisor

Your PhD supervisor will be one of the most influential people in your academic life. Throughout the course of your doctorate, your supervisor will play the role of mentor, confidant, cheerleader, and advisor. They will be crucial to your PhD’s success so it’s important to make a prudent choice.

Social sciences, arts, and humanities PhD programs often require applicants to indicate a potential supervisor when applying. It is recommended that you contact this person before submitting your application. However, in STEM fields it is more common to apply for a predetermined PhD research project with a supervisor attached. In this case, applicants can still benefit from either researching or contacting the supervisor assigned to the research project.

Before you can start evaluating potential supervisors you must have a clear idea of what you want to research. Since you’re planning on doing a PhD it’s likely you have already identified some of your research interests. Your supervisor should be someone who has expertise in one of these areas. If you want to pursue a PhD in social sciences, arts, or the humanities it’s a good idea to develop a project proposal or at least some specific research questions in mind before starting to contact potential supervisors.

Come Up With a List

Now it’s time to do some research and come up with a list of potential supervisors. Are there certain names that come up again and again when you research this topic? If you’re having a hard time coming up with some scholars on your own, it can be incredibly helpful to talk to a professor in your department about potential supervisors. They know the field better and will be able to suggest some researchers who work on your research topic.

Once you make the initial list, it’s time to whittle it down. Read up on each person on your list. Are they still an active researcher? Do they still work on your research topic? Are they currently supervising students? What are the admissions criteria for the institution they work at? The answers to these questions will probably eliminate a few potential supervisors from your list leaving you ready for the next step.

Make Contact

The easiest way to approach the people on your shortlist of potential supervisors is by sending them a quick email. To make a good impression, this email should be well-written, concise, and personalized to the recipient. Your email should:

Clearly state your interest in doing a PhD with them
Describe your academic background and research interests
Explain why they are the perfect person to supervise you (by making reference to their work)
Mention any funding you are applying for
Ask if you can arrange a time to meet or talk on the phone about the project
Include your CV ( here’s a handy template ) and research proposal
If you don’t hear back from them in two weeks, send a follow-up email. If you don’t hear back in another two weeks, start to look elsewhere. There may be many reasons the professor doesn’t answer you; don’t take it personally.

Meeting Face to Face

When a professor responds that they are interested in you and your project, they will probably want to meet you (either in person or virtually on Skype ). This meeting will allow your potential supervisor to learn more about you and determine if your personalities are a good fit. The will have several questions for you and, likewise, you should prepare some questions for them so that you can decide if you really want to do a PhD with them. Relevant questions would be:

What are the characteristics of a successful PhD student?
What do you expect of the students you supervise?
How do you mentor students?
What are your past students doing now?
How many students are you currently supervising?
How much time would you have for me?
What do you think of my research proposal?
Do you have any sabbaticals planned during the time I would be doing my PhD?

The answers to these questions will tell you a lot about their supervision style. Choosing a supervisor is a personal choice and each applicant will value different qualities over others. Generally, your supervisor should be someone you get along with who is approachable, has a good placement and publication record, and is enthusiastic about your project.

Discover related jobs

Discover similar employers

Accelerate your academic career

How to Answer Common Interview Questions

Make sure you’re ready to impress the interviewer with these answers to ...

8 Tips for Writing a Statement of Purpose

The statement of purpose is an essential part of a PhD application. Use ...

PhD, Postdoc, and Professor Salaries in Norway

Considering an academic career in Norway? Find out how much PhD students...

A Guide to English Proficiency Tests

Here is an overview of the four most widely-accepten English proficience...

Overcoming Impostor Syndrome

Impostor syndrome is a nagging feeling of self-doubt and unworthiness th...

UK Academic Job Titles Explained

What's the difference between a Lecturer and a Reader? Here's a breakdow...

Jobs by field

Electrical Engineering 198
Programming Languages 175
Molecular Biology 172
Artificial Intelligence 163
Machine Learning 156
Materials Engineering 147
Cell Biology 144
Biochemistry 133
Computational Sciences 131
Materials Chemistry 128

Jobs by type

Postdoc 365
Assistant / Associate Professor 154
Professor 105
Research assistant 95
Researcher 94
Engineer 82
Lecturer / Senior Lecturer 65
Management / Leadership 56

Jobs by country

Belgium 339
Netherlands 202
Morocco 124
Germany 124
Switzerland 102
Luxembourg 78

Jobs by employer

KU Leuven 147
Mohammed VI Polytechnic Unive... 128
University of Luxembourg 77
Eindhoven University of Techn... 69
Ghent University 58
ETH Zürich 52
Leiden University 45
Silicon Austria Labs (SAL) 43
University of Antwerp 42

How to Choose an Academic Supervisor: A Complete Guide

July 16, 2022
GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

Your PhD supervisor will have a great deal of influence on your academic career.

“ A PhD is hard. But a good supervisor makes it much easier ,” says Emma Kathryn White , a PhD student in infrastructure engineering at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

In a recent study, Anna Sverdlik, an educational psychologist at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada, says that even though most comments concerning supervisors are positive and acknowledge their efficiency, support, feedback, and demeanor, “ it was the discrepancy between supervisors’ and students’ expectations that generated confusion, stress, and anxiety in students .”

When applying to graduate programs, you should ask yourself, “How do I choose an academic supervisor that suits me best?”.

PhD supervisors have a significant role to play in a candidate’s success. Around half of all PhD candidates in North America fail to complete their doctoral degrees because of the lack of support they receive.

Many PhD programs in social sciences, arts, and humanities require applicants to indicate a potential supervisor when applying. Getting in touch with this person is recommended before applying.

In STEM fields, however, it is more common to apply for a predetermined PhD research project with a supervisor. Researching or contacting the supervisor assigned to the project is still beneficial to applicants in this scenario.

Prior to applying to an academic program, supervisors often encourage students to reach out directly to them via email. Understanding what you are going to write and asking your prospective supervisor the right questions may help you decide whether they are a good fit for your research.

In order to choose the right supervisor for your graduate application, you must know how to act in every situation you encounter with your prospective supervisor.

We will guide you through the entire graduate application process of selecting an academic supervisor in this blog post.

Phase 01: Do your research

In order to evaluate potential supervisors, you must have a clear idea of your research interests. You likely have already determined some of your research interests since you intend to do a PhD.

Before choosing an academic supervisor, you must be certain about your own research interests.

Despite how simple that statement sounds, most students skip this step of determining what they want to focus on for the next four to five years.

Therefore, make sure to decide on a couple of research areas you are interested in first.

Imagine you are interested in completing a PhD in the humanities, arts, or social sciences. Ideally, you should have a supervisor who is knowledgeable in one of these fields. In this case, developing a project proposal or specific research questions before contacting potential supervisors would be a good idea.

Typically, you will have an interview (formal or informal) with your prospective supervisor. During this meeting, you will get a sense of your supervisor’s compatibility with you.

You might have to do some research first to make the most of this opportunity.

Read more on this topic : 5 Things You Should Know Before Writing to a Potential Supervisor

Identify shared research interests

It is important to ensure that your prospective supervisor has at least an interest in the field you wish to study. Start by exploring their personal and research group websites and publications.

You may want to go to their ResearchGate profile and Google Scholar profile if they do not have any of these things (or if their website link is broken, which often happens).

The publication process can take a while, so recent publications may not necessarily reflect current research in the group. In life sciences, the supervisor’s name would typically appear last in publications where they are the senior author. By doing this, you will be able to construct a mental map of where the group interests are going and where they have been.

It is important to be proactive in pursuing your research interests but also flexible: Your dream research topic may not currently be conducted by a particular group, but your supervisor might be open to exploring new ideas and research avenues.

Therefore, asking your supervisor about their current research interest is very important when you email them. There will be more information on this later in the blog post.

If the group or institution of interest does not have the appropriate facilities or resources, you may need to establish collaborations to access those resources elsewhere.

Check whether the department has the equipment you may need. Students often forget to check this. Most departments have a “facilities” page for you to check out on their main website.

Suppose, for example, that you are applying to a materials science department that does not have a scanning electron microscope and X-ray diffraction equipment. In that case, being skeptical and asking the graduate secretary for more information is okay. This is because you will need to use those devices at some point in your research.

You will be able to choose an academic supervisor more easily if you have done this preliminary research.

Find trusted sources

You can learn about the reputation of potential supervisors, the dynamics of their research groups, and exciting projects in your field of interest by talking with experienced and trustworthy people.

You might find that this process is much easier if you are interested in a supervisor from the same country since your current supervisor may have met them at a conference.

Your current supervisor may know position openings that fit your interests and time frame and is probably familiar with talented supervisors with good reputations.

You may also be able to get additional insight about working with your prospective supervisor from professors you admire, reliable student advisors, and colleagues.

In social media, such as Twitter and LinkedIn, you can find mutual friends who know the supervisor you are interested in.

They can provide valuable insider information you might not otherwise have access to.

Such information might be crucial when choosing an academic supervisor.

Get to know students from the lab

Get to know current students.

Meeting current students is an important step before joining a lab. You can get a sense of what it’s actually like to work with a supervisor from current students.

“ You want to do a mini background check, as it’s difficult to tell how honest a researcher is during an interview “, says Gerard Dericks from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom.

Gerard also emphasizes that “ speaking with former co-authors can also give candidates a better idea of how collaborative a supervisor is and how well their skills and research interests match .”

You can reach them by email. But, it would be best if you did not force them to give you information about the supervisor.

Students are unlikely to tell you directly if they are unhappy with their current supervisor.

Make sure you ask specific questions:

Do you meet regularly with your supervisor?
How long does it typically take to turn around a paper draft?
What do you think of the lab culture?
How does your supervisor handle mistakes or unexpected results?
What is your supervisor’s response to interruptions in your research due to personal matters?

Doing so lets you know what an insider knows about the lab environment. By asking this question, you’re indirectly asking how the supervisor operates.

Additionally, they can provide insight into the departmental culture and non-academic life. You could also meet with other students to better understand the department.

Try to connect with former students

While not always possible, meeting with past students is a great way to find the right academic supervisor for you. The career outcomes of past students can provide insight into what the lab was like when they were there.

Former students may be listed on supervisors’ websites, and you can contact them via LinkedIn or Twitter. Don’t ask about the group’s current situation, as they cannot provide such details.

They offer a unique perspective since they’ve been through the entire process from beginning to end, and in some cases, they no longer feel compelled to praise their former supervisor. You can also gain insight from previous students by reading their acknowledgements in their theses.

It’s unlikely that a supervisor will help a candidate build their resume if the supervisor prefers to work alone or does not include students as co-authors on their papers.

Having these perspectives will make it easier for you to choose an academic supervisor.

Align your expectations

Many PhD students don’t feel that their program meets their original expectations.

Before joining a PhD program or research group, aligning your expectations with your supervisor is important.

It is about finding someone who is a good fit for you – one person’s dream supervisor might be another’s worst nightmare. A “good fit” requires a serious self-evaluation of your goals, working style, and your expectations of a mentor.

Working in a research lab to gain the experience of a PhD student is one way to conduct this self-appraisal. The best way to gain such experience is to work as an undergraduate researcher in a lab. Alternatively, you can apply for a lab as an independent researcher for a limited period of time. After gaining such knowledge, you will be better positioned to choose an academic supervisor.

In academia, money plays a more important role than you might think.

Although some people are conditioned to avoid discussing finances at all costs, it is essential to set financial expectations early in your career to ensure your well-being in and out of the lab.

Funding will help you obtain the necessary chemicals and equipment for conducting exciting lab research. Additionally, you need to know if there is sufficient funding to complete your potential projects.

Find out the following information:

Are you entitled to a reasonable, livable stipend?
How much is the minimum required take-home stipend at the institution you’re interested in?
Does the institution have a hard cutoff for funding once your time runs out, or does it support students who take longer than expected?
Does the supervisor cut students off when funding runs low or is there a contingency plan?

Sometimes, your funding won’t cover your tuition and living costs, such as food and apartment rent. If you are in this situation, you may have to work an additional job (off campus). Choosing a department like this should not be your first choice if you are unwilling to do a second job.

When you contact a potential supervisor, remember to ask these questions.

Publications

The requirements for finishing a PhD thesis vary from program to program, and some PhD programs leave this up to the student and supervisor.

Some programs require you to publish several papers before defending your PhD or MSc. Individual groups sometimes require different numbers of papers (check with your supervisor). Knowledge of such specific information will assist you in selecting a supervisor.

Additionally, you might need papers published in high-impact journals if you plan to become a professor or postgraduate fellow after obtaining your PhD. You might not be able to achieve those goals if you choose an academic supervisor with no active publishing activity.

Ask yourself these questions before choosing an academic supervisor:

What number of publications are you planning on publishing as part of your PhD, and when will you publish them?
Is your prospective supervisor committed to publishing high-impact papers?

Professional development opportunities

In graduate school, professional development is a key aspect. To gain more diverse experience, some research groups require PhD students to mentor undergraduate students or work in the industry for a semester.

Other research groups connect with government entities, facilitating policy or government-based research. Your career and next steps depend on these opportunities.

Consider asking these questions:

What career development opportunities are available to a potential supervisor?
Will a potential supervisor allow students to attend workshops to learn new skills?
Does the organization support public outreach activities?
Are there opportunities for professional development at the institution?

It is better to focus firsthand on your professional development (in or outside of academia) since that will ultimately be your goal. Having such knowledge will greatly assist you in choosing an academic supervisor.

Phase 02: Interview or direct communication with your supervisor

Regardless of whether or not you have a chance to interview your prospective supervisor, you will still have the opportunity to communicate with them.

You can always contact them via email, for example.

You should ask the right questions in any of those situations to determine if they are the right fit for you.

Having done some research, you now understand what you want from your prospective supervisor.

It is important to interview your supervisor just as much as they are interviewing you.

Be sure to prepare questions and pay close attention to their responses. For example, ask them about their “lab culture,” research interests (especially in the future/long term), and what kind of graduate student they are looking for.

Are you feeling the need to “put on an act” to impress the supervisor?

You should represent yourself, not the person you think they are looking for. Some interviews will inevitably go badly for us all. You will have fewer consequences if you discover a poor fit during the interview than if you discover it after you have committed to a position.

Therefore, choosing your academic supervisor through an upfront interview is beneficial.

Ask yourself these questions before you meet with your prospective supervisor:

What do you look for in a mentor?
To what extent do you expect career guidance?
Does the potential supervisor consider your long-term goals, especially if you do not intend to pursue a career in academia?
What kind of students are unlikely to succeed in this research group?

Read more on this topic : How to write a follow-up email to a potential supervisor(With examples)

Phase 03: Look beyond the PhD

As a PhD candidate, you should look for a supervisor who can assist you in acquiring the skills you need to advance your career.

It’s important to build skills to pivot into what you’d like to do next, not just focus on the PhD topic or project. It is not the output of a PhD that matters, but who you are as a scientist.

Research integrity seminars, writing workshops, and advanced statistics training should always be discussed with potential supervisors.

A supervisor who is too focused on publishing papers might lack integrity and isn’t interested in helping their students develop their skills.

Consider the supervisor’s working style

Candidates should pay attention to the workplace culture and how things run daily before choosing a supervisor based on prestige and research interests .

You might want to discuss expectations with potential supervisors before agreeing to work with them, for example, their hours of operation, meeting frequency, and how they track their candidates’ progress.

Some students prefer to be micromanaged, while others prefer to work independently. The first thing you need to do is figure out what kind of person you are.

Having shared interests with a supervisor does not necessarily mean you’ll get along well, and just because you enjoyed a course taught by that professor does not mean you should apply to their research group.

Before choosing an academic supervisor, make sure you know the following:

Are you more comfortable with structure or the freedom to go at your own pace?
Are they expecting you to be in the lab from 6:00 AM to midnight every day (not a good sign)?
Is it okay with them if you work from home when you can?
Is it possible to work alternative hours if you have other responsibilities (such as childcare, other employment, extracurricular activities)?
What is the organizational structure of the group?
Does the lab have a manager or are logistics shared between the members?

Supervisor’s career stage

A researcher’s career stage is one of the most important attributes of a research group.

Supervisors’ personalities also play a part in this.

You may not be able to publish many high-impact journal papers when you choose an academic supervisor at the end of their career. Since they are nearing the end of their careers, they may not be as interested in publishing new papers. Therefore, it may not be the best choice for someone planning to enter academia after completing the PhD. Research connections and protocols may be more established for a supervisor later in their career.

Working under an academic supervisor at the beginning of their career may result in more pressure than working under an experienced supervisor. Early career stage supervisors have more chances to shape the direction of the lab’s research but less political power and less certainty of their supervision style.

Additionally, they will likely encourage students to publish more often without a clear motivation. It can be extremely stressful for students to deal with this situation.

As it applies to many situations, your best bet is to find a supervisor somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

Group dynamics

As well, consider different lab sizes and their pros and cons. Although big labs offer more opportunities for collaboration and learning from others, supervisors spend less time with students.

The supervisor is more accessible in smaller labs but can also be more isolating. As there are fewer moving parts in a small lab, you might be able to “ think ” more freely.

Furthermore, small groups tend to conduct more disruptive research , while larger groups develop extant research topics further.

Follow your instincts

Having quantifiable data and some statistics is essential to making logical decisions as an academic.

Every interaction with a potential supervisor, from the first email to the last, should be considered a piece of data to be evaluated.

It is sometimes possible to choose your academic supervisor after your first interaction with them, particularly if you engage in a live discussion. The first impression you make of someone is usually right most of the time.

Trusting your gut instincts has considerable value. When selecting a PhD supervisor, it is important to listen to your internal dialogue. You might want to proceed with caution if your internal dialogue includes phrases such as “ I’ll just work hard ,” “ maybe their students were exaggerating ,” etc.

You might have found a winner if you are saying, “ They are so kind and intelligent! ” or “ I cannot wait to start! “.

Re-iterate the whole process

I would advise you to repeat this long process all over again. It is crucial to compare your options before selecting a PhD supervisor.

By screening multiple groups, you learn a great deal about red flags, compatible work styles, expectations, and group atmospheres.

Take some time to consider your interviews with different supervisors and the outcomes you might get from each supervisor if you accept a research position. You may be able to choose an academic supervisor more accurately by following this thinking process.

You can repeat this process with another supervisor, university, or country. In order to choose a PhD supervisor wisely, you deserve to take your time and inform yourself about the options.

Despite a “failed” supervisor search, the time and energy invested would still be less than what a bad PhD experience consumes.

Final words

PhD studies can be a rewarding and life-changing experience. It is crucial that you make the right choice when choosing your PhD supervisor during your graduate application process, as your relationship with your supervisor can make or break your entire experience.

Go ahead and pursue a PhD after you’ve thoroughly evaluated your options!

Images courtesy : Ask question vector created by freepik – www.freepik.com , phd comics

Aruna Kumarasiri

Founder at Proactive Grad, Materials Engineer, Researcher, and turned author. In 2019, he started his professional carrier as a materials engineer with the continuation of his research studies. His exposure to both academic and industrial worlds has provided many opportunities for him to give back to young professionals.

Did You Enjoy This?

Then consider getting the ProactiveGrad newsletter. It's a collection of useful ideas, fresh links, and high-spirited shenanigans delivered to your inbox every two weeks.

I accept the Privacy Policy

Hand-picked related articles

How to ace the GRE and get into your dream school in five steps

February 19, 2024

The Art of Writing a Winning Statement of Purpose for graduate school (With examples)

January 28, 2024

how to research potential graduate programs

A Step-by-Step Guide to Researching Potential Graduate Programs

January 13, 2024

How to Find the Right Research Supervisor for Your Research

Deciding to pursue a PhD is a significant decision one takes for his/her career. And before starting on the doctoral journey, one needs to consider many factors like identifying their research topic, choosing the right university and department, and most importantly, knowing how to find a research supervisor who will be able to guide you in the right manner. The right PhD supervisor can strongly influence the success and quality of your degree and consequently, makes a significant impact on your academic career. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that you know how to find a research supervisor for your PhD program.

Table of Contents

Why a good supervisor is an invaluable asset

Obtaining a PhD is not easy and is often fraught with challenges. Hence, finding a research supervisor who will support you when your experiments fail, encourage you when you are plagued with self-doubt and guide you towards successfully presenting your thesis is vital. The roles and responsibilities of a research supervisor are to guide you through your research journey, and there are many ways they can help you do so. They can:

help you refine your research ideas
identify the knowledge gaps in the field of study and guide you through difficulties
offer valuable insights and provide advice on the most effective research methodologies to use.
help you to develop necessary research skills such as, critical thinking, analysis, and interpretation to conduct a successful research project.
offer you emotional and academic support in the ups and downs of your doctoral journey.

Hence, it is very critical to spend time finding a PhD supervisor who will be a great fit for your research project.

How to find a research supervisor that fits your needs

There are certain qualities of a good research supervisor that you will have to look for, in your own supervisor. Here are some basic things you should look for.

Choose an expert in your subject area: One of the most critical factors to consider when choosing a PhD supervisor is their research expertise. A good place to start your search for a good PhD supervisor would be the faculty profiles of universities and research institutes. Look for faculty members who have focused expertise in your research field and whose research interests align with your own. An ideal PhD supervisor must be someone who has authored a good number of articles, chapters, and books. This indicates that your supervisor is up-to-date on recent developments in your field and can provide you with the guidance and support you will need to write your thesis.

Look for someone whose mentoring methods match your learning style: If you are thinking about the questions to ask research supervisors, ask them about their mentoring style. Take time to learn as much as possible about them, ask them questions especially about their thought process, past work, and current projects. Also, try to understand the proposed supervisor’s mentoring style and ensure that it matches your learning style and preferences .

Consider personality traits and communication abilities: A PhD supervisor who is supportive, approachable, and possesses good communication skills can make a significant difference in your doctoral journey. While some supervisors can be hands-off and may offer minimal guidance, there are others who are more involved and will provide detailed feedback and guidance when required. You want to find a PhD supervisor who is easy to talk to , listens to your concerns and questions, and is respectful of your ideas and opinions.

Evaluate the success of past students and ask for feedback: Check the track record of your proposed PhD supervisor. Find their previous students and see if they were able to complete their PhD on time. Were they able to publish in top-tier journals? Were they successful in securing academic positions? Answers to these questions will help you determine if they are a good fit for you. You can also talk to other students and faculty members in your department to get recommendations and insights into different supervisors.

Remember, finding the right supervisor goes beyond their reputation or academic achievements. It is essential to assess their mentoring style, availability, and willingness to invest in your growth as a researcher. A supportive and collaborative supervisor can provide invaluable guidance, enhance your research skills, and open doors to new opportunities.

Choose wisely, collaborate closely, and let your research thrive under the guidance of a supportive and knowledgeable supervisor.

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

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

What are Experimental Groups in Research

What is a Review Article? How to Write it?

How to Find Your Ideal PhD Supervisor Using Google Scholar

By ProFellow Founder, Dr. Vicki Johnson

Many people are interested in pursuing a PhD because they have a specific topic of research that they would like to pursue through a PhD. In this article, I am going to show you how to find faculty members based at PhD programs who could be an ideal supervisor for your dissertation in your field of interest.

A critical step to getting accepted to a PhD program is to find a faculty member who is interested in being your PhD supervisor . This is the faculty member who will be assigned by the university to guide and mentor you throughout your PhD studies, and so it is important to find the right scholar who is doing research in your area of interest. Building rapport with faculty members at PhD programs before you apply is also critical to getting accepted to a PhD program, because often the faculty members will choose PhD applicants who propose research that is in alignment with the research that they are already doing and have funding sources for.

In the video above, I use a real-life example to walk you through my guidance on how to find your ideal PhD supervisor for your dissertation topic using Google Scholar.

Here is the step-by-step guidance on how to find a PhD supervisor who is doing research in your area of interest using Google Scholar.

Step 1: Search for recent academic papers in your subject of interest

Google Scholar is a Google search engine specifically for academic research articles and papers. This is the ideal search engine to find research publications by PhD faculty and other scholars. To start your search, open scholar.google.com and add the keywords of your proposed dissertation topic to the search bar. The papers that are returned will likely be in order of popularity and/or relevance to the keywords you entered (a typical Google algorithm).

Step 2: Filter the results by year

I suggest using the Publication date filter on the left sidebar, beginning with the words Any time , and select the option that will return papers published in the last 5 years. (At the time of this article’s publication, that would be the selection “Since 2016”.) It is best to look at more recently published papers as those authors are actively publishing research in the subject now and may have funding for incoming PhD students to continue the work in this subject.

Step 3: Identify papers of interest

You’ll find that the papers returned in this search will be on topics related to your subject of interest, or not. Identify the ones that appear to overlap with the research you would like to do. If you find yourself drawn to a particular sub-topic within the papers returned, you can also re-do your search using new keywords to find more papers like these. You can now click on a paper title and read the paper’s Abstract.

Most papers have a paywall, which means you may need to pay to read the full text version, but you might be able to get the full text copy via Google Scholar. Look at the right sidebar of Google Scholar results for links to an [HTML] or [PDF] of the full-text version. Often you can also get access to full-text journal articles and book chapters for free through your university or local library. It will be necessary to gather these papers for reference as you prepare your PhD research proposal, which may be required as part of your application to the PhD program.

Step 4: Look more closely at the papers’ authors

If you find one or more papers related to your proposed dissertation topic, the next step is to look at the authors and the universities where they are based. Often, the authors’ university or institutional affiliations will be listed beneath the authors’ names. If you are seeking to study in the US, naturally you’ll want to identify authors who are based at US universities. When you do find one, you can click their name to view their Google Scholar profile (if they have one). For more information about the scholar, I would suggest googling the author’s name and university to find their profile on the university website. This will often tell you if the scholar is a post-doc, Associate/Assistant Professor, Full/Tenured Professor or other position. Ideally you’ll want to find faculty who are Full/Tenured professors, since Associate and Assistant Professors typically do not supervise doctoral candidates (although it is worth asking, as this varies from university to university!)

Step 5: Look at the Professor’s university’s graduate programs

Once you find a faculty member of interest, you’ll need to confirm if they are based at a graduate school that offers a PhD program (and ideally, a fully funded PhD program! Learn more about fully funded PhD programs here ). If the school does not, you may have come to a dead end. However it may still be worthwhile to reach out to the faculty member for their advice on who is doing research in your subject of interest. They may be willing to introduce you to other faculty members that are not so easily found on Google.

If you discover that the university does have a PhD program, you should also look into whether the program offers full funding to incoming students. Not all PhD programs offer full funding. It is my sincere advice that you only pursue fully funded PhD programs – meaning programs that offer full tuition waiver and an annual stipend to all incoming PhD students. This is because it is very difficult to achieve enough external funding to fund your PhD studies.

You also want to look at the eligibility requirements for the PhD program. Identify whether you need to have a master’s degree and/or an undergraduate degree in the same discipline, whether they require GRE test scores, and the academic profile of their students, which may indicate if your own background will be competitive for acceptance.

Step 6: Email potential PhD supervisors of interest

Once you found an ideal PhD supervisor based at a PhD program, it’s time to do your email outreach. This article describes how and why you should do this outreach before you apply. Keep in mind this outreach is critical to success. Do not skip over the step of opening a conversation with the faculty member as you may find that they are not accepting graduate students the following year, or they’re moving in a new direction of research that is no longer in alignment with your topic of interest. This information is important to know before you apply and indicate your interest in working with them in the application. For guidance, read Questions to Ask Potential PhD Supervisors: Step 1 in Applying to Fully Funded PhD Programs .

Best of luck my friends as you develop your applications!

Would you like to receive the full list of more than 1000+ fully funded programs in 60 disciplines? Download the FREE Directory of Fully Funded Graduate Programs and Full Funding Awards !

Dr. Vicki Johnson is Founder and CEO of ProFellow, the world’s leading online resource for professional and academic fellowships. She is a four-time fellow, top Ph.D. scholar, Fulbright recipient and an award-winning social entrepreneur. She is the Creator and Director of Fully Funded , an award-winning online course and mentorship program for graduate school applicants seeking to find and win full funding.

How To Contact a Potential PhD Advisor
Questions to Ask a Potential PhD Advisor: Step 1 in Applying to Fully Funded PhD Programs
5 Ways Undergrads Can Prepare for Competitive Fellowships
Questions to Ask Admissions When Applying to Master's and PhD Programs
Video: How to Find Fully Funded Graduate Programs in Your Discipline

Dr. Vicki Johnson , Fully Funded , Graduate School Application Tips , PhD Application Tips

Free Webinar! Find 5+ Fully Funded Graduate Programs to Achieve Your C...

Fully funded master’s programs in modern languages, find and win paid, competitive fellowships.

Be alerted about new fellowship calls for applications, get insider application tips, and learn about fully funded PhD and graduate programs

Fellowship Resources

Calls for Applications
Upcoming Fellowship Deadlines
Fellowships Database
Interviews with Fellows
International Fellows Network
Graduate Funding Directory

Fellowship Tips

What is a Fellowship?
Fully Funded Course
Graduate School Funding
Fellowship Application Tips
Fulbright Application Tips
Fellowship Application Guide
Our Mission, History & Values
ProFellow Winner Testimonials
Fully Funded Course Testimonials
Fellowship Industry Report
Advertise With Us
Terms & Privacy

ProFellow is the go-to source for information on professional and academic fellowships, created by fellows for aspiring fellows.

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

You're a domestic student if you are:

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

You're an international student if you are:

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

How to find a PhD supervisor

Study tips Published 3 Mar, 2022 · 5-minute read

Along with choosing your research topic and writing your proposal, selecting your supervisor is one of the crucial steps in starting your PhD journey . Join us and 2 current candidates as we explore how to find a PhD supervisor in Australia.

Your supervisor is going to be one of the most important people in your life for the next 3-4 years or more*.

*In fact, many PhD candidates become lifelong friends with their supervisors. But that’s a topic for another time.

So, you don’t want to find just any supervisor. For a fulfilling and successful candidature, you need to know how to choose a good PhD supervisor – as well as understanding what to expect from your PhD supervisor.

We spoke with 2 UQ PhD candidates, Sarah Kendall and Chelsea Janke, about how to find a PhD supervisor who aligns with you and your research project.

Completing your PhD at The University of Queensland?

Find a UQ PhD supervisor

Get googling

We’re not kidding. The best starting point is to jump online and start researching your options.

Sure, Google might not be your go-to platform once you’re researching your actual thesis. But for finding potential supervisors, Sarah believes it’s not a bad place to start.

“The first thing I would recommend to find the best supervisor for you is to do a whole lot of googling,” says Sarah.

“Google different academics, read about their areas of research, and compile a list of academics whose research aligns with your areas of interest.”

You likely already know some academics to google from your undergraduate or postgraduate studies. However, you can also explore potential PhD supervisors on university websites like UQ’s researchers hub .

Create a shortlist

As you’re researching your options, take note of any academics who seem like they could be a great fit.

You might find it helpful to use a spreadsheet or similar file to keep track of your shortlist, including details such as:

university and school
contact details
link to their research page.

Consider including a space to write down 1-2 unique things that put each academic on your shortlist. For example, you may have studied under them previously and enjoyed their approach to teaching , or perhaps one of their recent projects is highly relevant to what you wish to research.

Meet with your potential supervisors

An important step in how to find a PhD supervisor is to find out what they’re like in person. This means contacting and setting up a time to meet each person on your shortlist.

Chelsea suggests an introductory email to get the ball rolling.

“Send an email briefly outlining who you are, your background, and what your research interests are,” she says.

Then it’s time to organise a face-to-face (or at least a screen-to-screen), and Sarah reckons this is the moment you’ll know whether it’s a match or not.

“I would recommend meeting with as many of the academics on your list as possible – whether in person or via Zoom,” says Sarah.

“Once you’ve talked with a potential supervisor, you’ll know immediately if they’re a good fit for your project – trust your gut!”

You want a supervisor who is encouraging, communicates well, and is enthusiastic about you and your project.

Sarah’s advisory team consists of 3 supervisors: Dr Caitlin Goss , Professor Heather Douglas , and Dr Robin Fitzgerald . Here’s what drew her to these academics:

“I chose this supervisory team because they’re all incredible role models and mentors for young women who are seeking a research career. They are open and encouraging, and I know they’ll always support me through the highs and the lows. Each of them also brings a unique skill set and body of expertise, which is important to me because I like approaching problems from different perspectives.”

Discover what else makes a good PhD supervisor .

But what if you meet multiple academics who fit the brief?

Well, that’s when understanding yourself becomes the tiebreaker. Chelsea believes knowing your personal preferences can help you choose a good PhD supervisor to match your work style.

“Identifying if a PhD supervisor might be good for you will be an individual thing,” says Chelsea.

“Some students want a supervisor who lets them be very independent, while others prefer someone who gives them very detailed instructions and has a lot of time for them.”

Think about what you want and aim to find someone who meets those criteria.

Sarah agrees that finding a PhD supervisor who gels with your personality should be a top priority.

“At the end of the day, you need to choose someone who you’re comfortable with, as you’ll be working with them for the next 3-4 years,” she says.

Speak with other students

Chelsea believes a great route to find out what to expect from your PhD supervisor is to talk to candidates who have researched with them.

“The best way to get a feel for how someone is as a supervisor is to ask their current or past students,” she says.

Things you can discover about a potential supervisor by speaking with their students include:

whether they have a hands-on or hands-off approach
if they’re easy to talk to
who else they work with (e.g. other academics relevant to your research)
whether they have funds
how many other students they’re supervising at the moment.

These conversations with other candidates can reaffirm the vibe you got from your meeting with the academic, or it might encourage you to seek out someone who wasn’t that high on your shortlist.

Consider having multiple supervisors

You know what they say. Two’s company. Three’s a more comfortable PhD experience.

Did you know you can have more than a single PhD supervisor? Chelsea is quick to remind us of this, though she also warns against turning your research project into a research party by inviting too many academics.

“Keep in mind that you can have multiple supervisors, so one supervisor may have the funds while another may have more time for you,” she says.

“Although, having more than three supervisors is probably going to get very tricky to manage!”

In fact, if you do your PhD at UQ , you’ll conduct your research with an advisory team consisting of a principal adviser and at least one associate adviser.

Want to learn more from Sarah and Chelsea? Easy:

Read Sarah’s series on becoming a law academic .
Read about Chelsea’s award-winning PhD thesis on keeping crops healthy.

Share this Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

How to get a PhD

4-minute read

Is a PhD worth it?

9-minute read

How long does a PhD take?

3-minute read

How to write a good PhD proposal

5-minute read

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

Jan 8, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to choose a PhD supervisor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your PhD Thesis. On one page.

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

What is the role of a supervisor?

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

In other words: they advise, you decide.

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

Primarily, their job is:

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

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

What does a supervisor not do?

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

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

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

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

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

What you need to do to please your supervisor

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

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

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

Wrapping up

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

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

Hello, Doctor…

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Journey – How to Identify a Fantastic Supervisor

Entering graduate school to complete a doctorate degree is one of the most important decisions in an academic’s research career. This decision requires a logical evaluation of one’s long-term career path. Before beginning a PhD course, some key aspects should be decided:

1) Choosing your niche of interest

2) Selecting an excellent supervisor

It is certainly easier to pursue your career when you identify a research problem that interests you. In addition, having shared interests with your mentor/supervisor will help build working relationships. It is wise to outline your interests first and then align it with those whose ideals reflect yours. There are plenty of examples in academia where the working relationship has suffered due to poor mentorship. Furthermore, in academia, poor mentorship is the unfortunate norm and not the exception, although academics are now actively raising awareness publicly. We have addressed some of these concepts previously that include –

Dealing with a bad student-advisor relationship
Managing work relationships with an advisor
Dealing with unfair authorship claims
Obtaining academic support for researchers

In this article, we outline a guide to selecting a good PhD supervisor – perhaps even a fantastic one.

Selection Criteria

In a recent review, researchers tapped their own experience on how to approach a supervisor for research opportunities. It is important to acknowledge your research plan , capacity for independent funds, and the type of supervision you seek. A supervisor will take on a variety of different roles (mentor, adviser, editor, and boss) in a 3-4 year PhD course. However, their primary task remains to provide you with resources and a sound research platform to advance your career.

Lab Rotations

Organize to meet your supervisor in person. This could be a primary visit to discuss the research potential or an expansive visit that includes visiting their research facility. Supervision is a partnership; learn and be willing to be guided constructively. There are some dos and don’ts that may assist you in the process right from the beginning of your PhD to thesis submission.

Healthy Work Partnership

Maintain continued interests in the research area. Furthermore, always maintain brief and productive communication as finding a supervisor is a personal choice. Maintain professional courtesy, while creating a healthy work partnership . A strong work relationship is mutual, always be mindful of what you contribute and receive in return.

Discussions with Present and Previous Lab Members

It is perhaps most vital , to ensure that a supervisor of interest has a good background both professionally and personally . Existing problems in academia arise mostly due to personal conflicts, rather than professional differences. If research on your potential employer’s background results in allegations, restart your search.

Ideal Supervision

The concept of an ideal supervisor varies across academic disciplines and can be a personal viewpoint as well. The University of Calgary has an entire e-book published on this subject. Although the search for an ideal supervisor is tedious; a few databases offer options to delineate the process. A reasonable research supervisor must:

Mentor graduate students,
Train students in research and
Train students in writing publications/grants.

Lab Attrition Rates and Lab Placements

Choosing a research supervisor in the life sciences specifically is a bit more complicated than in other disciplines. Key reasons include funding rates, lab attrition, and ensuring first-author research publications for career advancement. This process can be facilitated by contacting the senior Faculty for general information. Alternately, you can also check your eligibility to receive independent funding as a graduate scholar through an affiliated public University. Once you decide that an individual meets the key criteria in your checklist, consider making a formal application with that fantastic researcher. Good luck.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Revolutionize Your Learning: The Power of Webinars in a Digital Age

Career Corner

Academic Webinars: Transforming knowledge dissemination in the digital age

Digitization has transformed several areas of our lives, including the teaching and learning process. During…

Secure Research Funding in 2024: AI-Powered Grant Writing Strategies

Manuscripts & Grants
Reporting Research

Mastering Research Grant Writing in 2024: Navigating new policies and funder demands

Entering the world of grants and government funding can leave you confused; especially when trying…

How to Create a Poster Presentation : A step-by-step guide

How to Create a Poster That Stands Out: Tips for a smooth poster presentation

It was the conference season. Judy was excited to present her first poster! She had…

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

What is Academic Integrity and How to Uphold it [FREE CHECKLIST]

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

Recognizing the Signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

7 Steps of Writing an Excellent Academic Book Chapter

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

2000+ blog articles
50+ Webinars
10+ Expert podcasts
50+ Infographics
10+ Checklists
Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

Industry News
Publishing Research
AI in Academia
Promoting Research
Diversity and Inclusion
Infographics
Expert Video Library
Other Resources
Enago Learn
Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
Peer-Review Week 2023
Open Access Week 2023
Conference Videos
Enago Report
Journal Finder
Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
Editing Services
Publication Support Services
Research Impact
Translation Services
Publication solutions
AI-Based Solutions
Thought Leadership
Call for Articles
Call for Speakers
Author Training
Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

Get the Reddit app

This subreddit is for discussing academic life, and for asking questions directed towards people involved in academia, (both science and humanities).

How to choose PhD supervisor?

I have no idea where to start. I’m not even sure if I want to do theory or experiment, I don’t know how can I choose a supervisor without fully exploring all these subfields. Is there any criteria for choosing a PhD supervisor?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Phd-supervisors experiences during and after the covid-19 pandemic: a case study.

1 Department of Education, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
2 Department of Educational Studies in Teacher Education, Faculty of Education, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Hamar, Norway
3 Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
4 Faculty of Arts and Physical Education, Volda University College, Volda, Norway

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the education sector, and this case study examined nearly three hundred PhD supervisors in Norway. The study was driven by the urgent need to better understand the professional, social, and existential conditions faced by doctoral supervisors during extended societal shutdowns. This explorative case study builds on a former study among PhD candidates and investigates the experiences of doctoral supervisors when remote work, digital teaching, and digital supervision suddenly replaced physical presence in the workplace, largely between March 12, 2020, and autumn 2022, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: A mixed-methods research approach, incorporating formative dialog research and case study design, was employed to bridge the conceptual and contextual understanding of this phenomenon. The primary data sources were a survey ( N = 298, 53.7% women, 46.3% men, response rate 80.54%) and semi-structured interviews (with nine PhD supervisors). Supplementary data collection was based on formative dialog research. It included field dialog (four PhD supervision seminars), open survey responses ( n = 1,438), one focus group ( n = 5), an additional survey ( n = 85), and document analysis of PhD policy documents and doctoral supervision seminar evaluations ( n = 7). The survey data, interview data, focus group data, and supplementary data focus also retrospectively on the first year of the pandemic and were collected from August 2022 until October 2023.

Results: The findings from the explorative case study revealed that the PhD supervisors faced numerous challenges during the pandemic, both professionally and personally. For PhD supervisors who extensively worked from home over a long period, the situation created new conditions that affected their job performance. These altered conditions hindered their research capacity, their ability to follow up with their PhD candidates, and their capacity to fulfill other job responsibilities. Although the PhD supervisors received some support during the pandemic, it seems that the incremental measures provided were insufficient.

Discussion: The case study results indicate that it is more important than ever to understand the gap between the formulation, transformation, and realization arenas when distinguishing between incremental, semi-structural changes and fundamental changes in PhD regulations and guidelines brought on by societal crises. This highlights the need for better crisis preparedness at the doctoral level in the years to come.

1 Introduction

Effective doctoral supervision is crucial for guiding PhD candidates through the complexities of their research, ensuring academic rigor and the successful completion of their dissertations ( Bastalich, 2017 ; Wichmann-Hansen, 2021 ; Kálmán et al., 2022 ). The role of PhD supervisors during the pandemic and their impact on educational quality at various levels has been an under-researched area both nationally and internationally ( Börgeson et al., 2021 ; Krumsvik et al., 2022 ). Supervisors who have varying experiences and work under diverse conditions are key players in the transformation arena where central policies are applied at the institutional level. Their interaction with PhD-candidates, whether in-person or remotely, shapes partly the quality of PhD-programs and candidates’ learning experiences. The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the education sector in numerous ways, and this case study examined nearly three hundred PhD-supervisors in Norway with a Mixed Method Research design and different methods and data. The impetus for the study was the urgent need for a better knowledge base to understand the professional, social, and existential conditions for doctoral supervisors when society is shut down for an extended period. This explorative case study builds on our former study among PhD-candidates ( Krumsvik et al., 2022 ) and investigates the experiences of doctoral supervisors when remote work, digital teaching, and digital supervision suddenly replaced physical presence in the workplace (to varying extents).

First, the introduction contextualizes the study; second, the methodology is described; third, the main part presents the results from the survey part of the study; fourth, the data from the interviews and Supplementary data are presented; fifth, the discussion and conclusion are presented.

International policy documents underline the importance of PhD-supervision [ European University Association (EUA), 2010 , 2015 ] and, in Norway, it is crucial to view PhD supervision considering the specific frame factors for the PhD’s and some general trends of changed frame factors in doctoral education over the last 10 years ( Krumsvik, 2016a , 2017 ). It is therefore important to examine such frame factors in light of PhD-supervisors’ experiences during the pandemic, but the current state of knowledge is still limited around this topic. However, “The United Kingdom Research Supervision Survey Report 2021″ found that among the 3,500 PhD supervisors in the United Kingdom, 65% felt that supervisory responsibilities have increased during the pandemic, 32% agreed that “concerns over supervision have kept me awake at night over the last 12 months” and 31% agreed that “supervising doctoral candidates makes me feel anxious over the last 12 months” ( UK Council for Graduate Education, 2021 ). With these abovementioned issues in mind, this doctoral supervision study builds on our previous research on doctoral-level education ( Krumsvik and Jones, 2016 ; Krumsvik and Røkenes, 2016 ; Krumsvik et al., 2016a , b , 2019 , 2021 ; Krumsvik et al., 2022 ) and aims to examine the experiences of PhD supervisors in Norway during the pandemic to answer the research questions below:

1. To what extent has the COVID-19 pandemic impeded the PhD supervisors’ frame factors on the micro-level, and how do they perceive this situation?

2. To what extent has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced PhD supervisors’ frame factors on the meso-level, and how do they perceive this situation?

3. How do the PhD-supervisors experience the more general aspects of their supervision role during and after the pandemic?

1.1 The Norwegian context

To contextualize the research questions to the Norwegian context, one must remember that doctoral candidates in Norway are not students per se but are employees (on a 3–4 years contract) and more regarded as colleagues than students, and in this sense, the roles are more equal than in traditional supervisory relationships at a lower level (supervisor-student). Both by having PhD fellows being considered highly competent adult employees with state employment contracts, where they receive regular salaries, and have regular offices, they are initially part of the work community found within academia with its routines, duties, and rights. Another contextual aspect is that Norwegian PhD-candidates defend their theses relatively late in their careers. The average age for a candidate’s defense is between 37 and 38 years and higher for many candidates within the humanities and social sciences. In comparison, the median age across OECD countries is 29 ( Sarrico, 2022 , p. 1304). Table 1 provides a generalized comparison of doctoral education across Nordic countries, the UK, and the US ( Andres et al., 2015 ; Burner et al., 2020 ). While such broad overviews might exaggerate differences, they provide a framework for understanding doctoral education on a spectrum. This spectrum ranges from countries with significant government influence, where PhD candidates are employed (e.g., Nordic countries), to countries with moderate government influence, where PhD candidates are not employed (e.g., the UK), and finally to countries with minimal government influence, where PhD candidates are also not employed (e.g., the US). Despite these variations, the global trend indicates that doctoral education is becoming increasingly dependent on external funding ( Bengtsen, 2023 , p. 45).

Table 1 . Overview of the Nordic PhD model in comparison to UK and US models.

In addition, women defend their theses on average 2 years later than men. Taking into account that the average age for first-time mothers in Norway is now 30.1 years, there is a lot that needs to happen within a few years, and this may sometimes affect the feasibility of their PhD-projects. This can, e.g., be related to the gender differences in Norway about parental leave days during the pandemic which is much higher for women than for men at the universities ( Krumsvik et al., 2022 ) 1 . Another contextual factor that distinguishes doctoral supervision from other supervision (at lower levels) is that over 90% of the doctoral theses in Norway are article-based theses ( Krumsvik, 2016b ; Mason and Merga, 2018 ; Solli and Nygaard, 2022 ), which implies 3–4 published articles and an extended summary or synopsis (a “kappe” in Norwegian, ranging between 50 and 90 pages). This means that the PhD-candidates receive “supervision” and feedback from approximately 8–10 referees in scientific journals on their articles, in addition to feedback from their PhD supervisors. Because of this, many PhD-supervisors are co-authoring their doctoral candidates’ publications. A final contextual aspect is the recent studies indicating a decrease in doctoral disputations nationwide in Norway over the past two years ( Steine and Sarpebakken, 2023 ) – probably as a consequence of the pandemic. In a survey, Ramberg and Wendt (2023 , p. 22) found that about 60 percent of PhD candidates and 50 percent of postdoctoral candidates ( N = 300) were delayed during the autumn of 2022. The study showed that illness or leave, often due to caregiving responsibilities during the pandemic, was the most common reason for delays among PhD candidates and postdoctoral candidates, particularly impacting women more than men. Following illness, reduced access to supervisors, empirical data, research facilities, and external partners were significant factors contributing to delays in their research activities. Nearly a third of delayed candidates reported reduced access to supervisors, and about a fifth faced issues with external partner access, highlighting the critical role of these resources in completing research projects. When it comes to the PhD-supervisors, more specifically, the supervision differs from other types of supervision in that a formal PhD agreement is signed with a binding supervisor contract that lasts for 3–4 years (the PhD period) and is signed by both the supervisor and the candidate. The supervisor also has an overarching responsibility to avoid delays and ensure that the PhD program can be completed within the standard time frame. Supervisors are primarily responsible for guiding doctoral candidates on the specific, content-related aspects of their projects. This includes helping candidates identify the knowledge frontier in their field, position their study within the research field, develop clear and consistent research questions, choose appropriate scientific and methodological approaches, and provide expert guidance in discussing results and addressing ethical issues related to the thesis. This obviously places relatively high competence requirements on the supervisors, both in terms of their academic and research skills, and in relation to the doctoral supervision itself, as poor or inadequate supervision at this level can expose the candidate to a certain “drop-out risk” in the project.

Maintaining education quality during the COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging due to the widespread shift to digital teaching, supervision, and remote work. Many university teachers were unaccustomed to the online, digital learning environment, working with PhD candidates remotely for extended periods. Some taught in hybrid settings, with some PhD candidates quarantined at home while others attended in-person classes. Additionally, others navigated ordinary learning contexts with COVID-19 precautions like masks and social distancing. This situation altered frame factors, adding complexity to the discussion of education quality.

Considering this, the case study seeks to understand if, and potentially how, external factors in pedagogical contexts over which institutions, academics, and teachers have no direct control play out. Lindensjö and Lundgren (2014) find that such external factors might have a significant impact on the outcomes of educational training, teaching, and supervision. Therefore, it is crucial to contextualize the pandemic experiences among PhD supervisors with respect to these factors, as they imply national and institutional frames for their PhD supervision. Though there exist several quantitative, survey-based studies on the impact of COVID-19 on PhD supervision (e.g., Pyhältö et al., 2023 ; Löfström et al., 2024 ), there is still a lack of in-depth qualitative understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on the supervisory relationship. The studies of Löfström et al. (2024) and Pyhältö et al. (2023) indicated that supervisors faced significant challenges in identifying when PhD candidates needed assistance and providing adequate support for their well-being during the shift to remote supervision. Supporting the progress and wellbeing of full-time candidates, who were more adversely affected by the pandemic than their part-time peers, became increasingly difficult. The increase in email communications could overwhelm supervisors, exceeding manageable levels and complicating their ability to offer timely and effective feedback. The lack of spontaneous, informal conversation, previously facilitated by in-person meetings, further hindered their ability to monitor and support the candidates effectively. These challenges were particularly pronounced for supervisors in scientific fields requiring lab work and practical training, which were severely disrupted by the pandemic, and supporting the progress and wellbeing of full-time candidates, who were more adversely affected by the pandemic than their part-time peers, became increasingly difficult. Furthermore, supervisors reported that their PhD candidates’ lack of a scholarly community and inadequate supervision were significant challenges. This reflects the supervisors’ view that the availability of a supportive research environment and adequate supervision are critical for candidates’ success ( Pyhältö et al., 2023 ). The study by Pyhältö et al. (2023) also found that supervisors generally estimated the impact on candidates’ progress and well-being to be more negative than the candidates themselves did, which may imply that supervisors have a broader perspective on the long-term consequences of disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. Research prior to the pandemic ( Pyhältö et al., 2012 ) has shown that apart from the importance of having clear and long-term financing, proper research facilities, and sufficient time to pursue a PhD, supervisors also stress the significance of PhD candidates’ motivation, self-regulation, efficacy, and engagement as essential personal regulators for success in the PhD process.

1.2 Theoretical framework

This case study is exploratory and intrinsic ( Stake, 1995 , 2006 ), utilizing an abductive approach to theory with frame factor theory as our theoretical framework ( Lundgren, 1999 ; Lindensjö and Lundgren, 2014 ). Frame factor theory suggests that society’s influence on education manifests through a target system, an administrative system, and a legal system. This theory, used in educational sciences and pedagogy, acts as a lens for planning and analysis, positing that external factors, beyond the control of institutions and educators, significantly affect educational outcomes. We will further explain the contextual application of frame factor theory in this case study below.

Previous research highlights a gap in (doctoral) education between the formalization and realization arenas in frame factor theory ( Lindensjö and Lundgren, 2014 ; Krumsvik et al., 2019 ). Linde (2012) introduces a transformation arena between these two, explaining the difficulty of implementing measures in complex organizations like universities. There is rarely a straightforward relationship between central decisions (formulation arena or macro-level) and their implementation (realization arena or micro-level). Policy documents require interpretation and application by faculty leaders, PhD program leaders, supervisors, and PhD candidates (transformation arena or meso-level) ( Linde, 2012 ).

Given this context, a main focus of this case study was to evaluate how Norwegian PhD supervisors managed changed frame factors and education quality during the pandemic. The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) defines education quality as “the quality of teaching classes, other learning facilities, and students’ learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills, and general competence” ( Skodvin, 2013 , p. 2). It is important to differentiate between educational quality, study quality, and teaching quality.

Education quality is a broad concept encompassing everything from the subject/study program level to the government’s education policy. In contrast, study quality is narrower, referring specifically to the educational institution ( Skodvin, 2013 , p. 3). Teaching quality goes further to the micro-level, focusing on course quality, teacher effectiveness, and PhD supervision. This study examined how PhD supervisors experienced COVID-19 restrictions at the micro- and meso-levels, considering two of the three levels. Figure 1 illustrates the analytical lenses in this mixed methods research (MMR) and formative dialog research case study:

Figure 1 . The analytical focus in the case study ( Krumsvik et al., 2019 ) is based on the frame factor theory ( Linde, 2012 ; Lindensjö and Lundgren, 2014 ).

2 Methodology

To understand and corroborate conditions faced by doctoral supervisors related to COVID-19 extended societal shutdowns, both in breadth and in depth, we employed a mixed-methods research design, combining quantitative data to show the strength of associations and qualitative data to explore their nature ( Johnson et al., 2007 ; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017 ). We utilized a three-stage design, QUAL-QUANT-QUAL (qualitative-driven sequential design, Schoonenboom and Johnson, 2017 ), making it a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods study ( Johnson et al., 2007 , p. 124). Using mixed methods research allowed us to explore the complex research problem more comprehensively compared to using either quantitative or qualitative data alone. Though the approach is less common in case studies ( Tight, 2016 , p. 380), the mixed methods are increasingly used (e.g., Ertesvåg et al., 2021 ; Hall and Mansfield, 2023 ; Peters and Fàbregues, 2023 ). Advocates of such approaches consider mixed methods to “complement and extend one another and thus lead to better descriptions, clearer explanations and an enhanced understanding of phenomena, research aims and questions” ( Ertesvåg et al., 2021 , p. 655).

Specifically, an exploratory, sequential mixed-methods design was used to address the research questions ( Fetters et al., 2013 ; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017 ). This design involves collecting and analyzing qualitative data first (QUAL), using those findings to guide the quantitative data collection and analysis in the second phase (QUANT), and then using the quantitative results to inform further qualitative data collection and analysis in the third phase (QUAL). This method integrates through building, where results from one phase inform the next.

We conducted a cumulative data collection and analysis process ( Creswell and Guetterman, 2021 ), basing survey questions on previously collected data from field dialogues, online observations, seminar evaluations, and document analysis. The questionnaire consisted of a general demographic questions (e.g., gender, educational background and what field(s) the supervisor supervised in), in addition to a range of multiple response items addressing four key themes: (1) important factors to complete a PhD, (2) supervisor challenges, (3) working from home experiences, and (4) perceived need for future competences as supervisors. Finally the questionnaire contained a range of statements measured on a Likert-scale from 1 to 5 where 3 was neutral (e.g., to what extent do you feel that your PhD-candidate(s) are on track with their doctoral project?). The qualitative interview guide ( Kvale and Brinkmann, 2015 ) was developed from the prior quantitative data (survey), and the focus group guide was based on earlier survey and qualitative interview data (see Figure 2 below). We integrated research questions, methods, interpretation, and reporting at various points, using narratives where qualitative and quantitative results are presented in different sections of the same article through the contiguous approach ( Fetters et al., 2013 ). This article primarily examines the coherence between qualitative and quantitative findings based on confirmation , expansion , or discordance ( Fetters et al., 2013 ). The approach used in the study is similar to Hall and Mansfield (2023) and the coherence is derived from joint displays using visual means.

Figure 2 . The research process. The yellow arrows show the main data sources, and the blue arrows show the Supplementary data in this article. In addition, we have conducted focus group interviews and an extra survey, which will be published in another article (since they mainly focus on academic writing with the large language models).

As a consequence of the mixed-methods design, this study combines two approaches in case study research. The first, proposed by Stake (1995 , 2006) and Merriam (2009) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) , is situated in a social constructivist paradigm, and is attached to the qualitative part (connected to the second part of each research question). The second, based on Eisenhardt (1989) , Flyvbjerg (2011) , and Yin (2012) , approaches the case study from a post-positivist perspective ( Hyett et al., 2014 , p. 1) (connected to the first part of each research question). This intrinsic case study ( Stake, 1995 ) aims to focus on ecological validity:

“Ecological validity is the degree of correspondence between the research conditions and the phenomenon being studied as it occurs naturally or outside of the research setting” ( Gehrke, 2018 , p. 563). Informant selection was based on a purposeful method ( Maxwell, 2013 ), in which we recruited PhD supervisors from Norway.

Next, all interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis ( Braun and Clarke 2019 , 2021 ) where themes were constructed and presented in this paper (see section 4). In addition, we also conducted a sentiment analysis ( Dake and Gyimah, 2023 ) of the nine interviews (see Supplementary file ).

To answer the research question, we combined formative dialog research ( Baklien, 2004 ) and case study research ( Stake, 2006 ). Data collection consisted of fieldwork (see Supplementary file ), a survey N = 298, 53.7% women, 46.3% men, response rate 80.54%, nine semi-structured interviews (with PhD supervisors), and one focus group ( N = 5). Supplementary data consisted of an additional survey ( N = 85), PhD-policy document analysis ( N = 6), field dialogues (4 PhD supervision seminars), open survey data (1,438 responses), seminar observations ( N = 4), and reviews of relevant documents such as evaluations of doctoral supervisor seminars. We also used policy documents and regulations concerning PhD education in Norway as supplementary sources.

We focused on how PhD supervisors experienced changing frame factors, such as university lockdowns, remote work, digital teaching, digital supervision, doctoral progression, and others, with an emphasis on illuminating the micro-level (course and teaching level) from the PhD supervisors’ perspective. This focus is twofold: the program’s structure and quality directly affected the PhD- supervisors during the pandemic. The second is simply that they conducted several evaluations about matters related to the structure and quality compared with the others. However, PhD- candidates’ opinions are also important, and their views are also interwoven because some of them have been present during field dialogs and participated in the PhD-supervision seminars.

When focusing on how PhD-supervisors experience their supervision, PhD’s research progression, psychosocial aspects, their nearest superior, and the main focus are on illuminating the meso-level (institutional and program level).

2.1 Cumulative research process

In our case study, we brought the experiences and our study among PhD’s ( Krumsvik et al., 2022 ) from the period March 12, 2020, to November 30, 2021, into our design of this study. We executed an excessive cumulative data collection process (including a part during the pandemic) and analysis, especially from August 2022 – October 2023. The relatively long time period allowed the researchers to test their interpretations along the way and detect contrary evidence, e.g., reach saturation during the coding and analysis of the qualitative data ( Creswell and Guetterman, 2021 ).

3.1 Quantitative part (survey)

Above and below are the results of the quantitative part of the study, based on the survey data. This analysis is tentative and covers only the survey results. The interview data and Supplementary data will be presented later in the paper. Two hundred and forty respondents completed the survey ( N = 298, 80.54% response rate). The academic backgrounds of the supervisors were diverse, with the three largest groups coming from natural sciences, humanities, education and teacher training. The largest group of supervisors (41.75%) supervised PhD candidates in education and teacher training (see Table 2 ).

Table 2 . Distribution of supervisors by academic background and PhD supervision in various fields.

A narrow majority (58.08%) of the supervisors had submitted an article-based dissertation (see more in attachment 5 in the Supplementary file ), in the Supplementary file meaning that approximately four out of ten supervisors have not “hands on” experience with article-based thesis as their thesis in their own doctoral degree. A large majority (81.67%) had supervised PhD candidates before and after the pandemic, while 11.67% had only supervised during and after. 41.27% of the supervisors stated that the coronavirus pandemic (from March 12, 2020 - January 2022) had impeded their candidate(s) progress in their doctoral project. 21.12% agreed (to a large or very large extent) that the PhDs’ publication process of articles to scientific journals has been delayed because of the journal’s peer review process during the pandemic (i.e., journal processing times seemed to increase due to several factors including a lack of available peer reviewers because of heavy workloads, health issues, more teaching, etc.).

3.1.1 Challenges in supervision

Results in Table 3 indicate that the most commonly reported challenges faced by supervisors during the pandemic were balancing work and family life and working from home, each affecting more than a third of the supervisors. Psycho-social aspects, such as loneliness, also emerged as a notable challenge. The cancelation of conference participation and stays abroad were significant issues, reflecting the broader impact on professional development opportunities. Concerns about supervision quality were also prominent. Some supervisors reported no challenges, highlighting a degree of variability in experiences. Other challenges included delays in the peer review process for journals, difficulties with publishing, and issues related to research ethics, though these were less commonly reported.

Table 3 . Challenges faced by supervisors during the pandemic in terms of supervision.

3.1.2 Challenges in working from home

Results in Table 4 indicated that supervisors faced multiple challenges while working from home during the pandemic. The most common issue was having little contact with colleagues, which affected more than six in ten supervisors. Supervisors also frequently reported having little contact with their PhD candidates. Distractions from others at home were another prevalent challenge. Many supervisors experienced an increased workload due to digital teaching from home, and lacking office equipment, such as desks and office chairs, was also commonly reported. Psycho-social aspects, such as loneliness, were significant issues as well. The lack of space and increased home responsibilities, such as childcare, were notable challenges. A smaller number of supervisors reported having no challenges at all. Other less commonly reported issues included limited access to library services and poor internet access.

Table 4 . Challenges faced by supervisors during the pandemic working from home.

3.1.3 Factors PhD candidates need to complete their doctorate

We find that there is a high degree of consistency between what supervisors ( Table 5 ) and PhD candidates ( Table 6 ) consider to be the most important factors for completing the doctorate. In particular, it is persistence, resilience, and the ability to work independently are the most important factors, in addition to supervision and co-writing with supervisors.

Table 5 . Most important factors in completing a PhD as reported by PhD supervisors.

Table 6 . Most important factors in completing a PhD as reported by PhD Candidates.

Thus, there is considerable agreement between what the supervisors and the PhD candidates report, which may indicate that within the academic tradition, the doctoral journey is primarily seen as an individual endeavor (feat of strength) where the supervisor is the closest supporter.

3.1.4 Appreciation of supervision

The supervisors mostly agreed that both they and the PhD candidates value supervision. 89.91% responded they agree or strongly agree to this question for themselves, and 92.47% responded they agree or strongly agree on behalf of the PhD candidates. In comparison, 61.25% responded similarly to whether the department values supervision, while 24.17% were neutral, and 14.59% responded they disagree or strongly disagree. This may suggest that the supervisory relationship is primarily between the PhD candidate and the supervisor, with less firm ties to the institution.

When it comes to what extent the supervisors think that their institution has been accommodating regarding compensating the loss of progress due to the coronavirus pandemic for their own PhDs, 27.2% stated that this had been done to a small extent or very small extent and 29.39% stated that this had been done to a large extent or very large extent. 30.1% agreed (large extent and very large extent) that supervisory responsibilities have increased during the pandemic. 13.3% expressed (to a large or very large extent) that supervising doctoral candidates makes them feel anxious’ over the last 24 months” (pandemic), but the majority (64.3%) experienced this to a small and very small extent. 9.3% expressed (to a large and a very large extent) that concerns over doctoral supervision have kept them awake at night over the last 24 months (pandemic), but the majority (69.3%) experienced this to a small and very small extent. 56.1% of the supervisors have not discussed any challenges with the progress of their doctoral candidate(s) project due to the coronavirus pandemic with the department’s human resources manager/head.

When asked how many hours they have enshrined in their working plan per semester as the main supervisor per PhD candidate, supervisors state this varies from zero to above 80 h, but for the majority, it is between 20 and 40 h per semester (40.46%). 23.1% state they do not think that their PhD-candidate(s) are on track with their doctoral project, while 50.2% state that their PhD-candidate(s) are on track with their doctoral project. Some PhDs publish their articles in their thesis based on pre-collected data (e.g., as a part of bigger projects), while others publish their articles in their thesis based on data collections done by themselves. 58.77% of the supervisors think this affects the completion time for the last group of PhDs (large and very large extent). 53.4% of the supervisors have been co-authoring their doctoral candidates’ publications.

3.1.5 What competencies supervisors need

As seen from Table 7 , nearly half of the supervisors believed they needed more pedagogical and methodological competence related to supervision. Additionally, about one-third felt they lacked knowledge about formal aspects, such as guidelines, related to the PhD program. The supervisors reported that the guidelines for the doctoral program were somewhat clear, particularly those for article-based dissertations. This perceived clarity was positively correlated ( r = 0.23, p = 0.002) with the extent to which the institution offered “continuing professional development” (CPD), and 39.88% of the supervisors stated that their institution did not provide supervisors with CPD. Thus, while many supervisors recognized the need for enhanced pedagogical and methodological skills, as well as a better understanding of formal guidelines, the availability of CPD programs was associated with clearer doctoral program guidelines. This suggests that increasing access to professional development opportunities could improve supervisors’ competence and clarity regarding program requirements, ultimately benefiting the supervision process.

Table 7 . Competencies PhD supervisors believe they need to increase.

3.1.6 Female academics with children

About four out of ten supervisors (41.07%) agreed (to a large or very large extent) that female PhDs with children seem to have more home responsibilities than men (e.g., for childcare, household, homeschooling, own children in quarantines, etc.) during the pandemic. About three out of ten (27.77%) agreed (to a large or very large extent) that female PhDs’ (with own children) submission rates to scientific journals have been delayed as a consequence of COVID-19, considering that women seem to have more home responsibilities (e.g., for childcare, household, homeschooling, own children in quarantine, etc.) during the pandemic. About two out of ten (23.64%) agreed (to a large or very large extent) that female supervisors’ (with their own children) submission rates to scientific journals have been delayed as a consequence of COVID-19, considering that women seem to have more home responsibilities (e.g., for childcare, household, homeschooling, own children in quarantine, etc.) during the pandemic.

Cronbach’s alpha ( α = 0.87) indicated a high level of consistency among three statements concerning the increased home responsibilities faced by female researchers with children compared to their male counterparts during the pandemic. These statements highlighted that female researchers with children appeared to bear more responsibilities at home, such as childcare, household tasks, and homeschooling, and as a result, their submission rates to scientific journals had been adversely affected by COVID-19. The average response (mea n = 3.18, standard deviatio n = 0.88) indicated that the supervisors were generally neutral toward these statements. However, closer inspection revealed that female supervisors (mea n = 3.29, standard deviatio n = 0.92) agreed with these statements more than male supervisors (mea n = 3.03, standard deviatio n = 0.79), a difference that was statistically significant ( p = 0.017) but with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.30). There was a positive correlation ( r = 0.23, p = 0.002) between whether the PhD candidate had considered quitting the PhD program and the three statements, which suggests that supervisors who reported that PhD candidates had considered quitting also agreed more with the statements. Conversely, a negative correlation ( r = −0.21, p = 0.002) was found between considering quitting the PhD program and the belief that the institution made sufficient efforts to compensate for the lack of progress during the pandemic, indicating that better institutional support might have reduced the likelihood of candidates considering quitting.

3.2 Qualitative part (interview data and other types of qualitative data)

We conducted a cumulative data collection process where the qualitative interview guide questions were built upon previously collected quantitative data (survey). Based on a snowballing sample ( Patton, 2015 ), we recruited nine doctoral supervisors from the humanities, social-, and educational sciences with diverse experience and approaches to supervising PhD candidates during the pandemic. Using semi-structured interviews ( Brinkmann, 2022 ), each supervisor was interviewed online using Zoom with interviews lasting from 30 to 60 min. All interviews were conducted in Norwegian and later transcribed verbatim. We followed Braun and Clarke’s, (2019 , 2021) approach to reflexive thematic analysis to analyse the interview data. The themes constructed from the analysis of the interview data focus issues, such as “The Impact of the Pandemic on Supervision,” “Home Office Experience,” Workload and Employer Support,” “PhD Candidate Preparation for Article-Based Theses,” “Competence in Supervising Article-Based Theses,” and “Guidelines and Structuring the PhD Process.”

3.2.1 Analyzing the interview with Kyle

Introduction: Kyle, aged 47, specializes in professional ethics. He completed his doctoral degree through a monographic thesis and is relatively new to supervising PhD candidates, currently guiding three, two of whom he is the main supervisor.

Impact of the Pandemic : Kyle wore two hats during the pandemic: as a PhD supervisor and as a leader of a doctoral program. He noted that the pandemic did not significantly impact his supervisees due to well-planned data collection that adapted to digital formats when necessary. His role as the program leader gave him broader insights into how other candidates fared, with some experiencing difficulties in recruiting interviewees and needing to adjust their research plans accordingly.

PhD Supervision During the Pandemic : Kyle’s supervision was largely unaffected by the pandemic as most of it was conducted digitally, catering to students located in different parts of the country. He emphasized the importance of maintaining frequent contact, especially when usual social and professional gatherings were suspended. The pivot to online platforms like Zoom and increased digital communication tools helped maintain the continuity and quality of supervision.

Home Office Experience : Working from home was generally positive for Kyle, who appreciated the reduced distractions and the ability to maintain productivity with a well-equipped home office. However, he missed informal interactions with colleagues, which were hard to replicate through digital means.

Workload and Employer Support : Kyle experienced a slight increase in workload as more effort was required to monitor and support students remotely. His interactions with his Head of Department/direct manager were supportive, helping him navigate the challenges of remote supervision.

PhD Candidate Preparation for Article-Based Theses : Kyle observed that many PhD candidates were unprepared for the intricacies of article writing, including the lengthy processes of submission and peer review. He attributed this to their educational background, which primarily focused on monographic work at the bachelor’s and master’s levels.

Competence in Supervising Article-Based Theses : Although Kyle has not written a synopsis (‘kappe’, i.e., a synthesis chapter for article-based theses) himself, he feels prepared due to his involvement in supervisor training programs that include synopsis writing. He believes in collaborative supervision where co-supervisors with more experience in specific areas can complement his guidance.

Guidelines and Structuring the PhD Process : Kyle praised the clarity of guidelines regarding the synopsis writing at his program, highlighting proactive efforts to discuss and understand these guidelines among candidates and supervisors. He supports the idea of starting the synopsis early in the PhD journey, allowing candidates to develop a clear perspective on how their articles will integrate into their larger thesis narrative.

Summary: Kyle’s approach to PhD supervision during the pandemic was proactive and adapted to the challenges of remote interactions. He emphasizes the importance of clear guidelines, structured support from the academic program, and the benefits of collaborative supervision. His perspective offers valuable insights into managing PhD supervision under crisis conditions and highlights areas for potential improvement in preparing candidates for the demands of article-based theses.

3.2.2 Analyzing the interview with Sally

Introduction: Sally, aged 46, is experienced in the field of educational sciences and professional research, having supervised 15 PhD candidates to completion. She conducted her doctoral research through an article-based thesis.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates : Sally observed that the pandemic had a limited impact on most of her PhD candidates, except for 2–3 individuals who experienced delays, partially due to the pandemic. Disputations were delayed for some candidates who preferred physical attendance, affecting their completion timeline.

Adaptations in Supervision Methods: The pandemic made Sally diversify her supervision methods, including more frequent digital meetings with Zoom or Teams and asynchronous communications like email. She shifted from paper-based to digital comments on drafts, which enhanced the efficiency and immediacy of feedback. This change is something she intends to continue using beyond the pandemic.

Home Office Experience: Sally found working from home manageable and returned to the office as soon as feasible, particularly because she needed to balance work with family responsibilities. The transition to the home office did not significantly disrupt her supervision activities, though it introduced minor challenges like occasional distractions from family.

Increased Workload During the Pandemic: Sally reported a slight increase in her workload during the pandemic due to a need for more frequent communication to ensure the continuity and quality of supervision. This was compounded by the timing of her candidates being in critical phases of their thesis work.

Support from Employer: She felt that the focus of her institution’s support during the pandemic was more on ensuring that PhD candidates were well-supported rather than directly supporting the supervisors themselves.

Preparedness of PhD Candidates: Sally noted that while the PhD candidates were generally well-prepared academically, they often lacked specific training in writing article-based theses, a significant adjustment from writing monographic theses typical at the bachelor’s and master’s levels.

Competence in Supervising Article-Based Theses: Sally felt confident in her ability to supervise article-based theses despite recognizing the ongoing need to adapt and learn, particularly in managing the synthesis chapter or “kappen.”

Clarity of Guidelines for the Synopsis: She found the guidelines for writing the synopsis at her institution clear and involved in educational efforts to help candidates understand these guidelines better. However, she questioned whether standardization would improve understanding or unnecessarily restrict academic freedom.

Timing for Writing the Synopsis: Reflecting on her experience and current practices, Sally advocated for thinking about the synopsis early in the doctoral process but cautioned against producing extensive texts prematurely. She emphasized the importance of adapting the scope of the synopsis as the research evolves.

Use of Doctoral Committees’ Guidelines: Sally observed that adherence to guidelines varies depending on whether committee members are national or international, with international members often impressed by the candidate’s ability to publish in high-ranking journals.

Overall, Sally’s experiences and insights provide a nuanced view of PhD supervision during the pandemic, highlighting flexibility, adaptation, and the importance of maintaining high standards of communication and support. Her approach demonstrates a balance between structured guidance and allowing academic independence, aiming to foster resilience and adaptability among her PhD candidates.

3.2.3 Analyzing the interview with Gabbie

Introduction: Gabbie, aged 54, specializes in school and teacher education. She has supervised two PhD candidates to completion and is currently guiding four others. Her doctoral thesis was article-based.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates : Gabbie observed varied impacts of the pandemic on her PhD candidates. While two of her students were minimally affected, one faced significant challenges in data collection due to difficulties in recruiting informants. This disparity seems to have been influenced by the candidates’ approaches or perhaps their personal rapport with potential informants.

Changes in Supervision Practices: The pandemic shifted Gabbie’s supervision to entirely online formats using Zoom, Teams, or phone apps. While she was accustomed to digital interaction, the lack of informal, face-to-face interactions led to a more formal and structured supervision style. The spontaneous “corridor conversations” that often enhance relational aspects of supervision were missing, which she felt detracted from the personal connection in the supervisor-supervisee relationship.

Home Office Experience: Gabbie had a positive experience working from home, finding it efficient and beneficial due to eliminating commute times and the conducive environment at home for focused work. Her family setup supported this arrangement well, allowing her to balance work and home life effectively during the pandemic.

Workload Changes During the Pandemic: Her workload in terms of PhD supervision remained roughly the same, though the nature of interactions changed. Instead of impromptu office drop-ins, there were more scheduled meetings, primarily online via Zoom or Teams, which required a different kind of preparation and possibly led to more structured discussions.

Support from Employer: Gabbie noted a lack of specific support for supervisors from her employer during the pandemic; the focus was more on ensuring that she, like other staff, was generally coping with the pandemic’s challenges. There was an emphasis on looking out for the PhD candidates’ well-being, translating into a directive for supervisors to maintain close contact and support.

Preparedness of PhD Candidates for Article-Based Theses: Similar to Kyle and Sally, Gabbie agreed with the survey findings that many candidates are not well-prepared for writing article-based theses. She attributes this to their academic background, which primarily focuses on monograph writing. She advocates for collaborative writing for the first article to help familiarize candidates with the process of scholarly writing and peer review.

Evaluation of Own Competence in Supervising Article-Based Theses: She feels confident in her supervisory skills but acknowledges that continuous learning and discussion with peers are essential for handling complex or unfamiliar issues that arise during supervision. Gabbie appreciates the collaborative nature of the supervisory teams at her institution, which helps in managing any gaps in her experience or knowledge.

Clarity of Guidelines for the Synopsis: Gabbie finds the guidelines for writing the synopsis to be somewhat unclear and open to interpretation, suggesting that more explicit guidelines could help, especially for those new to supervising or external committee members who evaluate the theses.

When to Start Writing the Synopsis : She recommends that PhD candidates consider the synopsis throughout their doctoral journey but compile it towards the end. Gabbie advises keeping a file of potential content for the synopsis from the start of the doctoral process, which can include discarded sections from articles or ideas that do not fit into the articles but are valuable for the overarching thesis narrative.

Overall, Gabbie’s experience reflects a pragmatic and flexible approach to PhD supervision. She adapts to the demands of the pandemic while trying to maintain the quality of academic mentorship. Her strategies for managing remote supervision and her positive attitude toward the enforced changes highlight a successful adaptation to the challenges posed by the pandemic.

3.2.4 Analyzing the interview with Henrik

Introduction: Henrik, aged 46, specializes in school and educational research. He has successfully guided three PhD candidates as a primary supervisor and is supervising four more. His doctoral thesis was a monograph.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates: Henrik noted that the pandemic affected his PhD candidates differently based on the nature of their research. Those engaged in classroom interventions faced significant challenges due to pandemic-related restrictions, particularly in accessing schools and conducting fieldwork. Conversely, candidates focused on desk-based research, such as literature reviews, experienced fewer disruptions. One of his candidates, involved in empirical research, had to receive an eight-month extension due to difficulties in data collection, exacerbated by strikes in the secondary education sector.

Changes in Supervision Practices: The transition to online supervision did not significantly affect Henrik, as he was already accustomed to conducting supervision via video conferencing tools like Teams and Zoom. However, he missed the informal, face-to-face interactions that often enrich the supervisory relationship. He noted that the absence of casual corridor conversations led to a more formal and structured online interaction.

Home Office Experience: Henrik found the exclusive home office setup challenging and detrimental to his well-being. He prefers a balance between working at the office and from home. The lack of physical interaction with colleagues and the continuous remote work environment negatively impacted his mental health, requiring him to seek professional health support.

Workload Changes During the Pandemic: Henrik reported that his workload related to PhD supervision did not increase significantly during the pandemic. However, other responsibilities became more demanding, and the overall context of working from home without the usual workplace interactions made certain tasks more difficult.

Support from Employer: There was no specific support provided by his employer concerning his role as a PhD supervisor during the pandemic. Support efforts were more generalized and not tailored to the unique challenges faced by supervisors.

Concerns for PhD Candidates: Henrik was particularly concerned about the mental health of his candidates, noting that the isolation and disruption caused by the pandemic were significant stressors. He proactively discussed these issues with his candidates, acknowledging the challenges faced by those with families and those who were isolated without a support network.

Personal Health Concerns: The pandemic had a substantial impact on Henrik’s mental health, highlighting the importance of considering the well-being of supervisors along with their candidates during such crises.

Effect on Completion Times: Henrik observed that the pandemic inevitably led to delays in the completion times of his PhD candidates, with some requiring extensions. He noted a disparity in how extensions were granted, suggesting a need for more consistent criteria.

Preparation for Article-Based Theses: Henrik believes that most PhD candidates are not well-prepared to write article-based theses, as their previous academic training typically does not include writing journal articles. He spends significant time discussing the publication process with his candidates to demystify it and help them understand the expectations of journal editors and peer reviewers.

Overall Reflection: Henrik’s experience reflects the diverse impacts of the pandemic on different types of research activities and highlights the importance of flexibility and support in PhD supervision. His proactive approach to discussing mental health and the structural changes in supervision practices illustrate adaptive strategies that can be beneficial in navigating future disruptions in academic settings.

3.2.5 Analyzing the interview with Luna

Introduction: Luna, aged 55, specializes in English as an Additional Language didactics. She completed her doctoral degree with an article-based thesis and has supervised a total of 11 PhD candidates, two of whom have completed their dissertations under her primary supervision.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates : Luna discussed the varying impacts of the pandemic on her supervisees. One candidate, who was already far along in her research when the pandemic hit, was less affected in terms of supervision but faced uncertainty and stress related to her digital dissertation defense using Zoom. For two new candidates who started during the pandemic, the experience was particularly challenging. They struggled with integrating into the academic community and adapting to remote work, significantly affecting their progress and emotional well-being.

Changes in Supervision Practices : The pandemic required Luna to adapt her supervision methods, emphasizing digital communication tools and frequent check-ins via Teams, Zoom, or phone apps. She noted that these changes allowed for maintaining close communication but shifted many supervision interactions to support coping with the emotional and logistical challenges posed by the pandemic.

Home Office Experience: Luna had a positive experience working from home, which was facilitated by having enough space and a family structure that supported a conducive work environment. She did not face significant challenges balancing work and family life, which helped maintain her productivity and well-being.

Workload Changes During the Pandemic: While her direct supervision workload remained stable, Luna’s role as a researcher education coordinator significantly increased her overall responsibilities. She was deeply involved in supporting a broader range of PhD candidates beyond her direct supervisees, which included mediating between candidates and their supervisors and helping navigate the challenges posed by the pandemic.

Support from Employer: Luna felt well-supported by her employer, particularly in terms of responsiveness to her needs and concerns as she navigated her roles during the pandemic. This support was crucial in managing the increased demands on her time and ensuring the well-being of the candidates for whom she was responsible.

Concerns for PhD Candidates: Luna expressed significant concern for the mental well-being of her candidates, noting that the pandemic exacerbated feelings of isolation and stress. She was particularly worried about those who could not integrate into the academic community or faced severe disruptions in their personal lives.

Personal Health Concerns: Despite managing her workload and maintaining her health, Luna acknowledged the intense pressures of her role during the pandemic, which were compounded by the high demands of her coordinator position.

Effect on Completion Times: Luna observed that the pandemic delayed completion times for many PhD candidates, with extensions being necessary but variably granted. She emphasized the importance of transparent and equitable handling of extension requests to ensure fairness.

Preparation for Article-Based Theses: Luna believes that PhD candidates are generally underprepared for writing article-based theses, attributing this to the educational focus on monographic rather than article-based work before the PhD level. She highlighted the importance of guidance in academic writing and understanding publication processes as essential components of PhD education.

Overall Reflection: Luna’s experience during the pandemic underscores the critical role of adaptability in supervision, the importance of mental health support for PhD candidates, and the need for clear communication and guidelines in managing extended impacts on doctoral education. Her proactive approach to addressing these challenges reflects a comprehensive and empathetic supervision style aimed at supporting candidates through unprecedented times.

3.2.6 Analyzing the interview with Lydia

Introduction: Lydia, aged 52, specializes in educational research, focusing on professional development, assessment, and teacher education. She completed her doctoral degree through a monographic thesis and has supervised three PhD candidates to completion, with six currently under her guidance.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates: Lydia noted that the pandemic affected the progress of her PhD candidates, especially those with young children or those who started their projects around the onset of the pandemic. The challenges of remote work and caring for family members led to minor delays in their research timelines.

Changes in Supervision Practices: For candidates who had already started their projects, Lydia managed to continue effective supervision by meeting them on campus when possible. However, starting a supervisory relationship entirely online via Zoom or Teams with new candidates presented difficulties, particularly in building rapport and trust.

Home Office Experience: Lydia found working from home to be somewhat liberating and enjoyed the quiet environment, which contrasted with the often-hectic campus life. Her home setup, which included adult family members who managed their responsibilities independently, provided a conducive environment for work without significant distractions.

Workload Changes During the Pandemic: While the actual supervision tasks did not significantly increase in time, Lydia spent more effort on providing emotional support to her candidates. Discussions often veered from academic topics to personal well-being, reflecting the heightened anxieties and social isolation experienced by the candidates.

Support from Employer : Lydia expressed disappointment with her institution’s lack of direct support during the pandemic. The focus remained on expecting faculty to adapt and manage without specific interventions aimed at easing the transition to remote supervision or addressing the unique challenges posed by the pandemic.

Concerns for PhD Candidates: She was particularly concerned about the psychological well-being of her candidates, as many were navigating difficult life stages compounded by the pandemic. Lydia felt a strong responsibility to reassure them and help them maintain confidence in their ability to progress in their research.

Personal Health Concerns: Lydia did not report significant concerns about her own health, feeling relatively privileged and well-adapted to the circumstances. She maintained a positive outlook, supported by stable family dynamics and the ability to engage in outdoor activities, which helped preserve her mental well-being.

Effect on Completion Times: Acknowledging the inevitable delays caused by the pandemic, Lydia noted that extensions were likely necessary for most PhD candidates during this period. She appreciated that post-pandemic policies allowed for extensions to address disruptions, especially those related to family responsibilities.

Preparation for Article-Based Theses: Despite not having written a synopsis herself, Lydia observed that candidates often lack preparedness for writing article-based theses, a gap she attributes to the traditional focus on monographic work at earlier academic stages. She advocates for enhanced training and support for candidates transitioning to this format.

Overall Reflection: Lydia’s reflections reveal a nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by PhD candidates and supervisors during the pandemic. Her approach highlights the importance of flexibility, emotional support, and the need for institutions to provide clearer guidelines and more robust support systems to adapt to such unprecedented circumstances effectively. Her experience underscores the critical role of empathy and adaptability in academic leadership during crises.

3.2.7 Analyzing the interview with Michelle

Introduction: Michelle, 41, specializes in educational science, teacher education, and language didactics. She has previously supervised five PhD students to completion and is currently the main and co-supervisor for ten PhD candidates.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates: Michelle reported varied impacts of the pandemic on her PhD candidates. Those who were in the final stages of their research before the pandemic began experienced minimal disruptions, benefiting from the shift to remote work which allowed them more focused time for writing. However, candidates in earlier stages of their projects or those with young children faced significant challenges due to reduced childcare hours and the need to juggle multiple responsibilities.

Changes in Supervision Practices: The pandemic greatly affected Michelle’s ability to provide regular supervision. With the demands of her own childcare responsibilities and the limitations of remote work, the frequency and quality of her interactions with her PhD candidates suffered. Supervision sessions were delayed, and Michelle had to adjust her practices, often conducting meetings via phone, online with Zoom or Teams, or in socially distanced outdoor settings.

Home Office Experience: Michelle found working from home to be extremely challenging, particularly due to the presence of young children and the constant interruptions that blurred the lines between work and home life. She experienced a persistent sense of being unable to adequately meet all her responsibilities as a supervisor and a parent.

Workload Changes During the Pandemic : Her workload related to PhD supervision became more demanding due to the difficulties in maintaining regular and effective communication. Michelle had to find creative ways to support her students, which often meant extended work hours and adapting to less conventional interaction methods.

Support from Employer: Michelle expressed significant disappointment with the lack of support from her employer during the pandemic. She felt that the institutions did not provide clear guidelines or additional support for managing the unique challenges brought on by the pandemic, leaving supervisors to manage as best they could under difficult circumstances.

Concerns for PhD Candidates: Michelle was particularly concerned about the psychological well-being of her candidates, noting that the isolation and disruptions affected different groups in varied ways. She observed that while parents were stressed and overextended, single young men often felt isolated and unproductive, which sometimes led to detrimental lifestyle changes.

Personal Health Concerns: Michelle mentioned that, like many in academia, she was accustomed to working excessively and did not have time to focus on her own health due to the demands of the pandemic situation.

Effect on Completion Times: Michelle anticipated that the pandemic would likely extend the completion times for many PhD candidates due to delays in data collection and the general disruption of academic schedules. She noted that while some extensions were granted, many were not, which added to the stress and uncertainty for the candidates.

Preparation for Article-Based Theses: Michelle believes that PhD candidates are generally not well-prepared to write article-based theses, which is often not addressed until during the PhD program itself. She emphasized the importance of structuring doctoral education to prepare better candidates for the realities of academic publishing and the peer review process.

Overall Reflection: Michelle’s experience during the pandemic highlights the complex challenges faced by PhD supervisors. Her insights underscore the need for better institutional support and clearer guidelines to navigate such unprecedented situations. Her commitment to adapting her supervisory practices despite personal and professional challenges demonstrates her dedication to her role and the success of her students.

3.2.8 Analyzing the interview with Ollie

Introduction: Ollie, aged 55, specializes in educational science and has completed his doctoral degree with a monograph. He has guided one PhD candidate to completion and is currently supervising three, with one about to defend their thesis.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates: Ollie noted significant disruptions for his PhD candidates due to the pandemic. One candidate was fortunate to have completed major data collection just before lockdowns, which somewhat insulated their progress. However, others struggled as their research depended heavily on data collection in schools, which became nearly impossible due to access restrictions and subsequent strikes affecting the school system.

Changes in Supervision Practices: While the physical data collection was hindered, Ollie found digital supervision effective, especially for discussing and editing texts. He appreciated the direct focus on the text that digital platforms such as Teams or Zoom facilitated, contrasting with the sometimes-awkward setups of physical meetings. Nonetheless, the lack of access to schools for his candidates meant there was less content to supervise, which altered the dynamics of his guidance.

Home Office Experience: Ollie had a relatively positive experience working from home, appreciating the convenience and reduced commute time. He noted that being at home allowed for a more relaxed dress code and flexible work hours, although he acknowledged a potential for decreased social interaction and the blurring of work-life boundaries.

Workload Changes During the Pandemic: Ollie’s workload in terms of PhD supervision remained largely the same, but the nature of the supervision changed. He spent more time helping candidates pivot their projects to adapt to the new realities, which included more discussions and finding alternative approaches to research obstacles.

Support from Employer: Ollie felt that there was a lack of specific support for PhD supervisors from his employer during the pandemic. The focus seemed to be more on undergraduate and master’s students, with little attention paid to the challenges faced by PhD candidates and their supervisors.

Concerns for PhD Candidates: He was concerned about the delays and the psychological impact on his students, noting the challenges of maintaining motivation and morale under such uncertain and stressful conditions.

Personal Health Concerns: Ollie was proactive about maintaining his physical health during the pandemic, investing in ergonomic furniture to ensure comfort while working from home. He did not express concerns about his psychological health, suggesting a pragmatic approach to dealing with the pandemic’s challenges.

Effect on Completion Times: He anticipated that the pandemic would significantly delay his PhD candidates’ completion times, mainly due to disrupted data collection processes. Ollie stressed the importance of data quality and how difficulties in data collection could impact the overall quality of doctoral research and subsequent publication opportunities.

Overall Reflection: Ollie’s insights reflect a nuanced understanding of the diverse challenges posed by the pandemic to doctoral education. His adaptation to online supervision using videoconferencing platforms such as Zoom or Teams highlights the potential benefits of digital platforms for focused academic work, even as he recognizes the significant disruptions to traditional research pathways. His experience underscores the need for institutions to provide more robust support systems for doctoral candidates and supervisors, ensuring that doctoral training quality and integrity are maintained even in adverse circumstances.

3.2.9 Analyzing the interview with Tyler

Introduction: Tyler, aged 60, specializes in the philosophy of science, organization, and educational leadership. He completed his doctorate with a monograph and has guided two PhD candidates to completion, with four currently under his supervision.

Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Candidates: The pandemic significantly disrupted the plans of Tyler’s PhD candidates, particularly affecting those involved in international collaborations and empirical research. One candidate missed a crucial research stay in Italy, impacting their opportunity to engage with an international academic community. Another had to revise their empirical approach due to restricted access to schools, which was a common issue during the pandemic.

Changes in Supervision Practices: Tyler’s supervision was heavily affected by the pandemic, with all interactions moving to digital platforms, including Teams and Zoom. This shift resulted in less frequent and less personal guidance, which he felt was less effective than the planned intensive seminars abroad. Like Ollie, however, Tyler noted some benefits to digital supervision using videoconferencing platforms, such as the ability to engage with text during sessions directly.

Home Office Experience: Initially, Tyler took on additional teaching responsibilities to compensate for colleagues struggling with digital formats, which increased his workload. Over time, he found a rhythm of working from home and even appreciated the focused time that allowed him to complete a book. He alternated working from home and the office, leveraging the strengths of both environments to maintain productivity.

Workload Changes During the Pandemic: Tyler’s workload in terms of PhD supervision did not increase significantly. Digital Teams or Zoom meetings tended to be shorter and more focused, which somewhat compensated for the increased preparatory work required for effective digital instruction.

Support from Employer: Tyler expressed frustration with his institution’s management during the pandemic, particularly concerning doctoral courses and the increased bureaucratic oversight that he felt stifled academic freedom. He noted a lack of focus on the needs of PhD supervisors and candidates compared to other groups within the university.

Concerns for PhD Candidates: While not overly concerned about the mental and physical health of his candidates, Tyler was worried about the practical aspects of their research, especially those needing to conduct fieldwork, which was severely impacted by the pandemic restrictions.

Personal Health Concerns: Tyler did not express particular concerns about his health; however, he took proactive measures to ensure a comfortable working environment by investing in ergonomic office equipment.

Effect on Completion Times: Tyler anticipated that the pandemic would extend the completion times for his PhD candidates, especially due to disruptions in data collection and the broader impact on academic research activities.

Overall Reflection: Tyler’s experiences reflect the complex challenges faced by academic supervisors during the pandemic, balancing the shift to digital platforms with maintaining academic rigor and support for their candidates. His story highlights the need for institutions to provide better support and flexibility for supervisors and PhD candidates during crises, ensuring that academic standards and well-being are maintained. Tyler’s ability to adapt and find personal benefits during the pandemic, such as completing a book, also underscores the potential for finding opportunities in the face of challenges.

3.2.10 Comprehensive analysis of the Main findings across nine interviews of doctoral supervisors in Norway

3.2.10.1 overview.

This analysis integrates the findings from interviews with nine doctoral supervisors in Norway, structured by the interview guide (based on the main findings from the survey) and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2021) approach to reflexive thematic analysis. The analysis focuses on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the progression of PhD candidates and the corresponding changes in supervision practices.

Main Themes Identified:

1. Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Progression:

• Disruptions in Data Collection : Most supervisors reported significant disruptions in their candidates’ ability to collect data, especially those requiring access to external facilities like schools or international institutions. This was primarily due to lockdowns and restrictions imposed to curb the spread of the virus. As one supervisor noted: “One of my candidates had to delay their project significantly due to the inability to collect data as schools were not accessible.” (Ollie)

• Adaptations in Research Plans : Many candidates had to alter their research methodologies or adjust their empirical scopes to suit the new constraints, highlighting the flexibility required under crisis conditions. However, one of the supervisors mentioned that: “It affected them very differently. I had three candidates before the pandemic, and two of them were barely affected. However, the third struggled significantly with data collection due to difficulties in recruiting informants.” (Gabbie)

2. Changes in Supervision Practices:

• Shift to Digital Supervision : All supervisors transitioned to online platforms for conducting supervision, such as Zoom, Teams, or phone apps (e.g., Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp). While some found digital tools effective for sharing and reviewing written work, others felt the lack of physical presence reduced the quality of interaction and guidance they could provide. As one supervisor noted: “Digital supervision worked very well because it allowed sharing and discussing texts more effectively than in-person meetings. This actually enhanced the focus on the text during sessions” (Ollie).

• Increased Need for Emotional Support : Supervisors noted an increased need to support the psychological well-being of their candidates, as many struggled with isolation and stress due to the pandemic. As one supervisor noted: “I was particularly attentive to the mental health of my candidates, especially those without local family support. Regular check-ins were crucial during this period” (Gabbie).

3. Work Environment and Work-Life Balance:

• Home Office Challenges : Responses about working from home were mixed; some supervisors appreciated the flexibility and reduced commute times, while others struggled with distractions and the blending of personal and professional spaces. As one supervisor mentioned: “I actually enjoyed working from home as it provided a peaceful environment, but I missed the informal interactions with colleagues.” (Lydia)

• Institutional Support : There was a notable lack of targeted support for supervisors from their institutions. This often left supervisors and their candidates feeling overlooked in broader university responses to the pandemic. As one supervisor noted: “There was no specific support for me as a PhD supervisor during the pandemic. The general support was the same as for all staff members” (Lydia).

4. Professional Development and Academic Output:

• Delays in Academic Milestones : The pandemic delayed key academic milestones, including thesis submissions and defenses, primarily due to halted data collection and extended research timelines.

• Publication Challenges : The disruption also impacted candidates’ abilities to publish their research, a crucial component of their academic careers, due to delays and changes in their research projects.

Integration of Findings with Saldaña’s Coding Framework and Interview Guide:

• Using Saldaña’s coding method allowed for identifying recurring challenges and adaptations among the supervisors’ experiences. The thematic analysis revealed a consistent need for increased flexibility in research planning and supervision methods.

• The interview guide helped maintain a focus on how the pandemic specifically impacted various aspects of PhD supervision and candidate progression. It ensured that all relevant areas, such as changes in work routines, supervision adjustments, and overall impacts on PhD timelines, were systematically explored.

Comprehensive Assessment : The interviews collectively underscore the resilience and adaptability required by PhD candidates and their supervisors during the pandemic. They highlight several areas for improvement:

• Enhanced Institutional Support : Institutions clearly need to provide more structured support tailored to the needs of PhD candidates and supervisors during crises.

• Flexibility in Research and Supervision Plans : Adapting research plans and supervision methods to accommodate unexpected disruptions is crucial for maintaining the integrity and continuity of PhD education.

• Focus on Mental Health : The increased emotional and psychological support needed by candidates suggests that institutions should integrate mental health resources more fully into their doctoral training programs.

• Preparedness and Training : The experience has shown the importance of preparing PhD candidates for unexpected changes in their research environment, including training in digital tools and remote research methodologies.

In conclusion, the pandemic has not only disrupted traditional PhD education paths but also provided insights into how flexibility, digital preparedness, and institutional support can be enhanced to better prepare for future crises. These insights are vital for shaping resilient and adaptive academic environments that can withstand global challenges while supporting doctoral candidates’ academic and personal well-being.

From the analysis of the nine interviews, a few aspects stood out as particularly notable, offering deeper insights (expansion) into the unique challenges and responses within the context of PhD supervision during the pandemic:

1. Resilience and Innovation in Supervision:

• Some supervisors noted that despite the significant challenges, the shift to digital platforms allowed them to explore new forms of engagement with texts and supervision methods. For example, one supervisor highlighted the effectiveness of digital tools for collaborative work on documents, suggesting that these might even surpass traditional face-to-face interactions in certain aspects. This adaptation was a positive takeaway that some found surprising and worth integrating into their post-pandemic practices.

2. Diverse Impacts on Different Research Types:

• The differential impact of the pandemic on empirical versus theoretical research was striking. Supervisors of candidates who needed to conduct fieldwork, especially in schools or abroad, faced severe disruptions. As one supervisor noted: “We had to adjust research plans significantly, shifting to alternative data sources and methods where possible.” (Kyle). In contrast, those whose work was more theoretical or could be conducted remotely experienced fewer setbacks. This variance highlighted certain types of research vulnerability to external disruptions, which was a notable point of concern.

3. Underestimation of Emotional Challenges:

• Another well known, but still important aspect was the depth of emotional and psychological impacts on PhD candidates as noted by their supervisors. The extent to which these challenges affected the candidates’ productivity and well-being was significant and perhaps underappreciated by the institutions themselves. This underscores a critical area for future academic support systems to address more robustly.

4. Lack of Institutional Support:

• The widespread sentiment of insufficient institutional support was particularly striking. Several supervisors felt that there was a lack of targeted strategies to support PhD supervision during the pandemic. This lack of support was not just in terms of transitioning to online modes but also in addressing the specific needs of PhD candidates and their projects during such a disruptive period.

5. The Positive Impact of Forced Adaptation:

• Interestingly, some supervisors pointed out that the forced adaptation to new circumstances led to unexpected benefits, such as enhanced focus and productivity in certain cases, and even opportunities for personal and professional growth, such as writing a book or developing new teaching methods. These outcomes, while not universal, were surprising positives that emerged from a generally challenging time.

The sentiment analysis of the 9 interviews (see attachment 4 in the Supplementary file ) showed some individual variations, but that resilience and adaptability among doctoral supervisors during the pandemic were quite common. Supervisors recognized the challenges but overall maintained a positive and proactive stance, focusing on solutions and effective management of their supervisory roles. The objective nature of their responses indicates a practical approach to dealing with the pandemic’s impact, emphasizing the importance of communication, adaptation to remote supervision, and institutional support.

These insights not only highlight the varied experiences of PhD supervisors during the pandemic but also suggest areas for improvement in how institutions support doctoral education in times of crisis. The resilience and innovative approaches developed during this period could inform future policies and practices to better support PhD candidates and supervisors alike.

3.2.11 Integrated analysis: the main findings from the interviews and the open survey responses

To integrate and analyze the findings from the interviews (see attachment 1) and the 1,483 open survey responses (see attachment 2) from the survey among 293 doctoral supervisors, we can draw on several key themes and concerns that emerge consistently across these data sources. This approach will help us understand the broader implications of the insights gathered from different perspectives within the same study.

1. Adaptation to Digital Tools and Platforms:

• Interviews : The interviews highlighted how supervisors adapted to using digital tools for communication and supervision. This was generally seen as effective but lacking in certain qualitative aspects, particularly in building deeper relationships and managing more nuanced discussions.

• Open Survey Responses : The survey also reflected a reliance on digital tools, with many supervisors recognizing their utility in maintaining continuity. However, there was also an acknowledgment of the challenges in fully replicating face-to-face interactions.

2. Ethical and Practical Concerns with Digital Supervision:

• Interviews : Concerns were raised about the relational and ethical implications of the lack of physical presence and interaction, and the extensive use of digital tools in academic settings during the pandemic.

• Open Survey Responses : Similar concerns were noted, with supervisors emphasizing the importance of ensuring academic integrity and the genuine intellectual development of PhD candidates.

3. Impact of the Pandemic on Supervisory Practices:

• Interviews : The pandemic’s impact was a significant theme, affecting the logistical aspects of supervision and the mental well-being of both supervisors and their candidates.

• Open Survey Responses : Responses indicated varied impacts of the pandemic, with some supervisors noting increased stress and difficulty in maintaining research productivity and supervisory quality.

4. Institutional Support and Professional Development:

• Interviews : There was a noted lack of sufficient institutional support for adapting to new modes of supervision and research during the pandemic.

• Open Survey Responses : This theme was echoed in the survey responses, with mixed reports about the availability and effectiveness of continuing professional development (CPD) related to research supervision. Some respondents felt unsupported, particularly in navigating the challenges posed by remote supervision and digital tools.

5. Preparedness of PhD Candidates:

• Interviews : Discussions highlighted concerns about the varying levels of preparedness among PhD candidates, especially in writing the synopsis and adapting to new research methodologies that include digital tools and remote data collection.

• Open Survey Responses : Supervisors expressed a range of experiences regarding candidate preparedness. While some noted their candidates were well-equipped, others pointed out significant gaps, especially in writing the synopsis and article-based theses and handling the referee process, the timeline and complex research independently.

6. Valuation of Supervision:

• Interviews : Supervisors discussed feeling that their efforts were not adequately valued by institutions, with a need for greater recognition and support for their roles.

• Open Survey Responses : This sentiment was reinforced by survey data, where some supervisors felt that their contributions to doctoral training were undervalued by their institutions, particularly when compared to other academic duties.

7. Suggestions for Institutional Changes:

• Interviews : There were calls for institutions to adapt more proactively to the changing landscape of doctoral education, including better training for using digital tools and more robust support systems for both supervisors and candidates.

• Open Survey Responses : Supervisors suggested various improvements, such as more structured professional development opportunities, better guidelines for remote supervision, and enhanced support for mental health and well-being.

3.2.12 Summary

The integrated analysis across interviews and open survey responses suggests a complex landscape of doctoral supervision during and potentially beyond the pandemic era. Key themes highlight both challenges and potential areas for policy and practice enhancements:

• Digital Adaptation and Ethical Concerns : While digital tools have provided necessary solutions for continuity in supervision, they bring up ethical concerns that institutions need to address more thoroughly, particularly concerning academic integrity and the quality of student learning.

• Support and Development Needs : There is a clear need for institutions to offer more targeted support and development opportunities for supervisors, addressing both the technical aspects of digital supervision and the broader pedagogical skills required in a changing academic environment.

• Recognition and Valuation of Supervision : Supervisors feel that their work is not sufficiently valued, suggesting that institutions should reevaluate how they recognize and support supervisory roles within the academic career framework.

• Candidate Preparedness : There is variability in how prepared PhD candidates are for the demands of modern doctoral research, indicating the need for more robust preparatory programs and entry assessments.

• These insights call for a strategic reassessment of doctoral training programs, supervisory support mechanisms, and institutional policies to better align with the evolving needs of both supervisors and their candidates.

4 Limitations and future research

The present study provides in-depths insights into PhD supervision during the pandemic; however, the study also has several limitations apart from inherited limitations of self-reports and interview data. Firstly, the findings might be context-specific to the educational setting in Norway. The unique characteristics of the Norwegian educational system, cultural aspects, and institutional structures may not be entirely generalizable to other countries. However, the globalization of doctoral education, with increasing international collaborations, international publishing, and standardization of academic practices, might mitigate this issue to some extent, making the findings relevant beyond the Norwegian context. Secondly, the study lacks data on PhD supervisors’ experiences prior to the pandemic. This absence of baseline data means we cannot directly compare the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Nonetheless, the experiences reported in this study correspond well with prior research on academic supervision ( Pyhältö et al., 2012 , 2023 ; Löfström et al., 2024 ), indicating that the challenges and adaptations observed are not entirely unprecedented, even if intensified by the pandemic context.

Future research should aim to explore the long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 on doctoral education. It is necessary to investigate whether the changes observed in supervisory practices during the pandemic are fleeting or have led to a permanent shift in how supervision is approached. Specifically, studies should examine if new models of remote supervision, increased flexibility, and the use of digital tools will continue to be integrated into doctoral education post-pandemic, or if traditional methods will resume dominance. This is of special interest in cases where PhD supervisors and PhD candidates are located at different institutions. By addressing these questions, future research can contribute to a deeper understanding of the pandemic’s legacy on doctoral education.

5 Conclusion

In this article we examined the experiences of PhD supervisors in Norway during the pandemic to answer the research questions:

1. To what extent has the COVID-19 pandemic impeded the PhD supervisors’ frame factors on the micro- level, and how do they perceive this situation?

2. To what extent has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced PhD supervisors’ frame factors on the meso- level, and how do they perceive this situation?

We conducted a cumulative data collection process and analysis, where survey questions were based on previously collected field dialog data, online observation data, seminar evaluation data, and document analysis data. The qualitative interview guide questions were built upon previously collected quantitative data (survey), and the Supplementary data was based on previously collected quantitative data (survey) and qualitative interview data.

The coherence between qualitative and quantitative findings is mainly examined based on confirmation , expansion , or discordance in this article ( Fetters et al., 2013 ).

The findings from the explorative case study revealed that the PhD supervisors faced numerous challenges during the pandemic, both professionally and personally. They found digital supervision with their PhD fellows via platforms like Teams and Zoom to be convenient and efficient but occasionally lacking in quality. They also encountered difficulties in addressing the psychosocial aspects of their PhD candidates’ experiences and faced various research-related challenges with their PhD-candidates during the pandemic. For PhD supervisors who extensively worked from home over a long period, the situation created new conditions that affected their job performance. These altered conditions hindered their research capacity, their ability to follow up with their PhD candidates and their capacity to fulfill other job responsibilities. Although the PhD supervisors received support during the pandemic, it seems that the incremental measures provided were insufficient. The PhD regulations were established before the pandemic under normal conditions and for normal circumstances. However, it appears that no significant adjustments have been made to accommodate the extraordinary pandemic conditions, which have altered some aspects of their professional roles as academics and PhD supervisors. This was particularly critical for PhD supervisors with young children, especially female supervisors, who had to deal with lockdowns, social distancing, remote work, homeschooling, quarantine for themselves and their children, and COVID-19 illness, since the data showed that they seemed to have more home responsibilities than men during the pandemic. We also found that some supervisors thought that female PhDs’ (with own children) submission rates to scientific journals have been delayed as a consequence of COVID-19, considering that women seem to have more home responsibilities. In addition, the supervisors thought that female supervisors (with own children) submission rates to scientific journals have been delayed as a consequence of COVID-19, considering that female supervisors seem also to have more home responsibilities (e.g., for childcare, household etc.).

This slow-motion disaster lasted up to 20 months and can be perceived as an “external intervention” or a naturalistic experiment which was impossible to predict for universities and society. The case study results indicate that it is more important than ever to plan for the unforeseen in order to be better prepared for the next societal crisis. Therefore, it is important to be vigilant and understand the gap between the formulation, transformation, and realization arenas when it comes to the distinction between incremental, semi-structural changes and fundamental changes in PhD regulations and guidelines brought on by societal crises. Although some support from employers has been offered, the overall PhD guidelines, regulations, and supervision norms remained unchanged in the transformation arena (meso- level) during the pandemic. On a general level, this highlights the need for better crisis preparedness at the doctoral level in the years to come.

A common finding related to RQ1 and RQ2 and across the different data sources was that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted some of the PhD supervisors in different ways on both micro- and meso-levels, and some of them perceive this long-lasting pandemic challenging and difficult, while others have experienced this to a lesser degree. This reveals a confirmation across the quantitative and qualitative data in the study. Also, these findings mostly confirmed and expanded on the understanding of the impact of the pandemic on PhD candidates ( Krumsvik et al., 2022 ), with some minor discordance.

More specifically, the PhD supervisors in the study were somewhat satisfied with the educational quality regarding digital teaching but experienced various supervision, research-related and psycho-social challenges. Although some of the supervisors received support during the pandemic, it seems like the majority did not receive sufficient support and their workload increased significantly during the pandemic. This is due to the high complexity of frame factors that have changed the underlying premises for doctoral education during the pandemic, affecting both the PhD- supervision and the PhD candidates’ feasibility on several levels. The regulations for PhD scholarships and PhD regulations, implemented before the pandemic in 2018, were designed under normal educational and social conditions and may not fully address the challenges faced during the pandemic. Therefore, this study shows that to reduce this gap and strengthen the feasibility of the PhDs and the frame factors for PhD-supervision, the institutions must significantly enhance their preparedness to effectively manage demanding situations at both micro- and meso-levels, ensuring they are fully equipped to address future societal crises of a similar nature.

When it comes to RQ3 we find both confirmation, expansion, and discordance across the quantitative and qualitative data. We find confirmation across the quantitative and qualitative data when it comes to the variability in preparedness of PhD candidates for writing the article-based thesis. Article-based theses present unique challenges compared to traditional monograph-based dissertations, particularly in terms of integration and the breadth of skills required. One of the primary challenges with article-based theses is integrating articles that may cover slightly different aspects of a research topic into a coherent overall thesis. This integration is critical, it requires a high level of academic writing skills and ability to secure the coherence of the synopsis. Candidates often come into PhD programs with varying levels of experience in academic writing and publication. The survey and interviews, as well as Supplementary data , indicate that many candidates are not well-prepared for writing article-based theses, highlighting a need for more targeted training in academic writing and publishing early in the doctoral process. The need for robust supervisory support is acutely felt in guiding article-based theses, where candidates must navigate the complexities of publishing in peer-reviewed journals alongside synthesizing their research in the synopsis. This implies that PhD-candidates both are taking a doctoral degree in the Norwegian context and at the same time are publishing articles for the international research context, which can be challenging.

We find expansion when it comes to the need to have guidelines for the synopsis. Supervisors reported significant variation in the guidelines for the synopsis across institutions, both in the qualitative and quantitative part, which can lead to confusion and inconsistency in expectations for candidates and supervisors. Some respondents found these guidelines sufficient, while others find them unclear or obscure, complicating their task of effectively guiding PhD candidates. Clear, comprehensible guidelines are essential for ensuring that the synopsis effectively synthesizes the research in a manner that meets academic standards ( Wollenschläger et al., 2016 ).

And we find some discordance regarding variability in candidate preparedness where both strands of the data indicated a significant variability in how prepared PhD candidates are when they enroll in doctoral programs. Candidates’ preparedness often depends on their previous educational experiences, which can vary widely regarding exposure to research methods, academic writing, and critical thinking skills. The variability in preparedness suggests a need for more robust preparatory programs to equip all incoming doctoral candidates with the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in their research endeavors. Implementing comprehensive entry assessments could help identify specific areas where candidates might need additional support, allowing programs to tailor preparatory courses or early doctoral training to address these gaps.

These findings collectively point to a need for doctoral programs to clarify guidelines, particularly for the synopsis in article-based theses, to enhance support for supervisory roles, and to develop preparatory programs that address the broad variability in candidate preparedness. This is also based on research on the need for rubrics ( Wollenschläger et al., 2016 ), which shows that transparency around requirements and guidelines is important for students learning. By tackling these issues, institutions can better prepare PhD candidates for the demands of modern doctoral research, ultimately leading to more consistent and successful outcomes in doctoral education. And despite that only 20 (8.3%) of the supervisors agreed or strongly agreed that they were supervising a PhD candidate who had considered quitting the PhD program during the pandemic, it is important to be vigilant around the (complex) reasons that causes this, since this is in many ways a drastic decision, first of all for the candidate themselves, but also for the supervisors, as well as for the society in general who has invested almost 5 million Norwegian kroner in each PhD-scholarship. Dropping out can partly be related to the observed findings that many PhD candidates were unprepared for the intricacies of article writing, including the lengthy processes of submission and peer review, attached to their educational background, which primarily focused on monographic work at the bachelor’s and master’s levels. This also implies that while PhD’s are perceived, assessed and evaluated as student/candidates when they are completing assignments in a doctoral program, there might be a quite new situation for them when they submit their articles to scientific journals with blind review, where they are evaluated as other researchers (and not only as students/candidates). Such findings (and similar findings) seem to go “under the radar” in doctoral programs in Norway and by taking into account such “tacit knowledge” we might be better prepared to bridge the formulation arena and realization arena within doctoral education in the years to come. This development also demands a vigilance within doctoral education of the importance of theory development within doctoral education since international research shows that doctoral supervision is under-theorized and lacks a solid knowledge base ( Halse and Malfroy, 2010 ; Halse, 2011 ) where also eclectic use of theories ( Dalland et al., 2023 ) can improve this area.

Author note

GPT-4o ( OpenAI, 2024 ) was employed in this article to translate interview findings to English after a general thematic analysis conducted in Norwegian and as one of several validity communities for the open survey responses. The GPT-4’s output was manually examined, edited, and reviewed by the authors. The sentiment analysis of the 9 interviews was done by the first author and by using the GPT-4o. Then it was carried out a validation of this sentiment analysis by SurveyMonkey ( SurveyMonkey, 2024 ), Claude ( Anthropic, 2024 ) and Gemini Advanced ( Google, 2024 ).

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

RK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. ØSk: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LJ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SS: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ØSa: Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KH: Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all doctoral supervisors for their responses to the surveys and for participating in interviews and focus groups on this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1436521/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ Some of the Norwegian statistic from universities shows the following: about parental leave (day’s work) (women 69%, men 31%), sick children (day’s work) (women 69%, men 31%), self-certified sick leave (day’s work) (women 65%, men 35%) and doctor-certified sick leave (day’s work) (women 72%, men 28%) during one of the year in the pandemic ( Krumsvik et al., 2022 ).

Andres, L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Gallego Castaño, L., Crossouard, B., Keefer, J. M., and Pyhältö, K. (2015). Drivers and interpretations of doctoral education today: National Comparisons. Frontline Learn. Res. 3, 5–22. doi: 10.14786/flr.v3i3.177

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anthropic. (2024). Claude 3. Large Language Model (version 14. March 2024) . San Francisco. Available at: https://claude.ai/new

Google Scholar

Baklien, B. (2004). Følgeforskning. Sosiologi i Dag 34, 49–66.

Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 1145–1157. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702

Bengtsen, S. S. E. (2023). “Doctoral education in-the-world: (dis)connections between research and society” in From splendid isolation to global engagement . eds. B. Wolf, T. Schmohl, L. Buhin-Krenek, and M. Stricker (WBV Media), 43–55.

Börgeson, E., Sotak, M., Kraft, J., Bagunu, G., Biörserud, C., and Lange, S. (2021). Challenges in PhD education due to COVID-19- disrupted supervision or business as usual: a cross-sectional survey of Swedish biomedical sciences graduate students. BMC Med. Educ. 21:294. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02727-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., and Terry, G. (2019). “Thematic analysis” in Handbook of research methods in health social sciences . ed. P. Liamputtong (Singapore: Springer), 843–860.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , 11, 589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Brinkmann, S. (2022). Qualitative Interviewing: Conversational Knowledge Through Research Interviews (2 ed.) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burner, T., Bjerkholt, E., Gaathaug, A. V., Kleiven, S., and Ljoså, T. M. (2020). Doctorateness across higher education Institutionsin Norway. Uniped 43, 3–18. doi: 10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2020-01-02

Creswell, J. W., and Guetterman, T. C. (2021). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research . 6th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dake, D. K., and Gyimah, E. (2023). Using sentiment analysis to evaluate qualitative students’ responses. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 4629–4647. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11349-1

Dalland, C. P., Blikstad-Balas, M., and Svenkerud, S. (2023). Eklektisk bruk av teori i doktorgradsavhandlinger innen utdanningsforskning. Acta Didactica Norden 17, 1–24. doi: 10.5617/adno.9837

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review , 14, 532–550. doi: 10.2307/258557

Ertesvåg, S. K., Sammons, P., and Blossing, U. (2021). Integrating data in a complex mixed-methods classroom interaction study. Br. Educ. Res. J. 47, 654–673. doi: 10.1002/berj.3678

European University Association (EUA) (2010). “Salzburg II” in Recommendations. European universities’ achievements since 2005 in implementing the Salzburg principles (Brussels: European University Association (EUA)).

European University Association (EUA) (2015). Annual Report 2015 . Brussels: European University Association (EUA).

Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., and Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv. Res. 48, 2134–2156. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12117

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). “Case study” in The SAGE handbook of qualitative research . eds. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. 4th ed (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 301–316.

Hall, J., and Mansfield, L. (2023). The benefits and complexities of integrating mixed method findings using the pillar integration process: a workplace health intervention case study. J. Mixed Methods Res. doi: 10.1177/15586898231196287

Gehrke, P. (2018). “Ecological validity” in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation . Ed. B. Frey. (Thousand Oaks: Sage), 563–565.

Google. (2024). Gemini Advanced. Large Language Model (version 20 May 2024) . Menlo Park, California. Available at: https://gemini.google.com/advanced?hl=no

Halse, C. (2011). ‘Becoming a supervisor’: the impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Stud. High. Educ. 36, 557–570. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.594593

Halse, C., and Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Stud. High. Educ. 35, 79–92. doi: 10.1080/03075070902906798

Hyett, N., Kenny, A., and Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well Being 9:23606. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.23606

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1, 112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224

Kálmán, O., Horváth, L., Kardos, D., Kozma, B., Feyisa, M. B., and Rónay, Z. (2022). Review of benefits and challenges of co-supervision in doctoral education. Eur. J. Educ. 57, 452–468. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12518

Krumsvik, R. J. (2016a). Noen betraktninger om forskningsveiledning PhD- nivå (some considerations about supervision at the doctoral level). In R. J. Krumsvik. En doktorgradsutdanning i endring – Med fokus på den artikkelbaserte PhD- avhandlingen (a doctoral education in alteration – With focus on the article-based PhD thesis) (pp. 125–148). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Krumsvik, R. J. (2016b). The synopsis of article-based theses. In R. J. Krumsvik. En doktorgradsutdanning i endring – Med fokus på den artikkelbaserte PhD- avhandlingen (a doctoral education in alteration – With focus on the article-based PhD thesis) (pp. 93–123). Fagbokforlaget.

Krumsvik, R. J. (2017). Trenerene i den akademiske maraton (The trainers in the academic marathon). Utdanningsforskning (Educational Research) , Oslo: The Educational Association. 1–3.

Krumsvik, R. J., and Jones, L. Ø. (2016). Hvorfor dropper “kronjuvelen” ut? (why do the “crown jewels” drop out?). Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening 12, 1022–1024.

Krumsvik, R. J., Jones, L. Ø., Leer-Salvesen, K., Høydal, K. L., and Røkenes, F. M. (2019). Face-to-face and remote teaching in a doctoraleducation course: using flipped classroom, formative assessment and remoteteaching to increase the teaching quality of a literature reviewcourse. Uniped 42, 194–214. doi: 10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2019-02-07

Krumsvik, R. J., Mæland, B., and Solstad, S. H. (2021). “Doctoral education in Norway and inter-institutional collaboration within doctoral education” in The future of doctoral research . eds. A. Lee and R. Bongaardt. 1st ed. (New York, NY: Routledge), 110–119.

Krumsvik, R. J., Øfstegaard, M., and Jones, L. Ø. (2016a). Retningslinjer og vurderingskriterier for artikkelbasert PhD. Uniped 39, 78–93. doi: 10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2016-01-07

Krumsvik, R. J., Øfstegaard, M., and Jones, L. Ø. (2016b). Retningslinjer og vurderingskriterier for artikkelbasert PhD-avhandling (guidelines and assessment criteria for article-based doctoral thesis). In R. J. Krumsvik. En doktorgradsutdanning i endring – Med fokus på den artikkelbaserte PhD-avhandlingen (a doctoral education in alteration – With focus on the article-based PhD thesis) (pp. 78–93). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 39.

Krumsvik, R. J., and Røkenes, F. M. (2016). Literature review in the PhD thesis. In R. J. Krumsvik. En doktorgradsutdanning i endring – Med fokus på den artikkelbaserte PhD-avhandlingen (a doctoral education in alteration – With focus on the article-based PhD thesis) (pp. 51–91). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Krumsvik, R. J., Skaar, Ø. O., Røkenes, F. M., Solstad, S. H., and Høydal, K. L. (2022). Experiences of WNGER II PhD. fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic – a case study. Front. Educ. 7:860828. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.860828

Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing . 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Linde, G. (2012). Det ska ni veta! En introduktion till läroplansteori (3rd Edn.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Lindensjö, B., and Lundgren, U. P. (2014). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning . Stockholm: HLS Förlag.

Löfström, E., Tikkanen, L., Anttila, H., and Pyhältö, K. (2024). Supervisors’ experiences of doctoral supervision in times of change. Stud. Grad. Postdoctoral Educ. 15, 34–48. doi: 10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0004

Lundgren, U. P. (1999). Ramfaktorteori och praktisk utbildningsplanering. Pedagogisk Forskning 4, 31–41.

Mason, S., and Merga, M. (2018). Integrating publications in the social science doctoral thesis by publication. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 37, 1454–1471. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1498461

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach . 3rd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., and Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . 4th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (May 20204 version) [Large language model]. San Fransisco, LA Available at: https://chat.openai.com/chat

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practic . Sage.

Peters, M., and Fàbregues, S. (2023). Missed opportunities in mixed methods EdTech research? Visual joint display development as an analytical strategy for achieving integration in mixed methods studies. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. , 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10234-z

Pyhältö, K., Tikkanen, L., and Anttila, H. (2023). Is there a fit between PhD candidates’ and their supervisors’ perceptions on the impact of COVID-19 on doctoral education? Stud. Grad. Postdoct. Educ. 14, 134–150. doi: 10.1108/SGPE-05-2022-0035

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., and Keskinen, J. (2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges Vis-à-Vis the doctoral journey. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 7, 395–414. doi: 10.28945/1745

Ramberg, I., and Wendt, K. K. (2023). Forskerhverdag under koronapandemien: Resultater fra en panelundersøkelse av norske forskere 2022 (Oslo: NIFU Working Note 9). Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3069589

Sarrico, C. S. (2022). The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. High. Educ. 84, 1299–1315. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1

Schoonenboom, J., and Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie 69, 107–131. doi: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1

Skodvin, O. J. (2013). “NOKUT og kvalitet i IKT-støttet høyere utdanning” in Ulike forståelser av kvalitet i norsk, fleksibel høyere utdanning . eds. T. Fossland, K. R. Ramberg, and E. Gjerdrum (Tromsø: Norgesuniversitetet).

Solli, K., and Nygaard, L. P. (2022). ‘Same But Different? Identifying Writing Challenges Specific to the PhD by Publication’, in Landscapes and Narratives of PhD by Publication . Eds. K. Solli and L. P. Nygaard Cham: Springer. 13–30.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis . New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Steine, S., and Sarpebakken, B. (2023). Færre doktorgrader innenfor matematikk og naturvitenskap i 2022 . Oslo: Statistics Norway.

SurveyMonkey. (2024). SurveyMonkey . San Mateo. Available at: https://surveymonkey.com

Tight, M. (2016). “Case study research” in The BERA/Sage handbook of educational research . eds. D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith, and L. Suter (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications), 376–394.

UK Council for Graduate Education (2021). The UK research supervision survey report 2021 . London: UK Council for Graduate Education.

Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2021). DUT Guide on Supervision. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift . 16, 1–13. doi: 10.7146/dut.v16i31.127292

Wollenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., and Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 44–45, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.003

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research . 3rd Edn: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Keywords: PhD-supervisors, experiences, COVID-19, supervision, PhD-fellows, frame factors

Citation: Krumsvik RJ, Røkenes FM, Skaar &O, Jones L, Solstad SH, Salhus & and Høydal KL (2024) PhD-supervisors experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study. Front. Educ . 9:1436521. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1436521

Received: 22 May 2024; Accepted: 15 July 2024; Published: 09 August 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Krumsvik, Røkenes, Skaar, Jones, Solstad, Salhus and Høydal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Rune J. Krumsvik, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Share on twitter
Share on facebook

Junior researchers ‘cited more if PhD supervisor is well known’

Success of those mentored by highly regarded scholars suggests ‘chaperone effect’ is increasingly important, finds study.

Share on linkedin
Share on mail

Three women in vintage 1920s attire dancing at a Gatsby-themed celebration.

Early career researchers are much more likely to see their work cited if their PhD supervisors are well-known academics, according to a major study that suggests scholarly success is increasingly dependent on the status of one’s mentor.

In a paper published in the Royal Society journal Interface on 14 August, researchers survey the “academic genealogy” of more than 300,000 academics who published nearly 10 million papers to work out if the PhD graduates of highly cited authors are more widely cited than those whose mentors had a lower academic reputation – a phenomenon that has often been attributed to the “chaperone effect”.

A positive correlation – which the paper labelled the “academic Great Gatsby Curve” in reference to the term used in social sciences to describe the persistence of intergenerational income inequality – was observed in nearly all 22 disciplines analysed but was strongest in philosophy, mathematics and linguistics.

Political science, computing and anthropology also have high levels of “impact inequality”, states the paper, with the “most egalitarian citation distribution” found in experimental psychology, microbiology and evolutionary biology.

The “impact persistence” between PhD mentors and mentees was slightly higher if the supervisor was female, the researchers note, suggesting that this is “possibly owing to female mentors having a lasting positive impact on mentees or providing career development facilitation to a larger extent than male mentors”.

On the growing importance of having a well-known “academic parent”, the study suggests that “academia has become less open and more stratified over time, as newer protégé cohorts are characterised by lower intergenerational mobility than their predecessors”.

While the paper, which examines whether the citations gained by scholars in the five years after their PhD aligned with the citation profile of supervisors, accepts that “more successful mentors may have the privilege of being more selective in their choice of mentees, and vice versa, leading to a positive correlation between their impact”, it also argues that PhD students of well-known scholars are able to benefit from more networking opportunities.

“The transfer of academic status is instead grounded upon the inheritance of intangibles such as knowledge and visibility,” it says.

Given how “academic impact – as quantified by citations – is to some extent inherited”, the authors advise that “citation-based bibliometric indicators should be handled with care when used to assess the performance of academics”.

[email protected]

Register to continue

Why register?

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

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

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

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Doorman at Oxford University to illustrate Elites won’t fix inequality

Obsession with elites won’t fix inequality

Addressing extreme social stratification is a responsibility of all universities. But focusing excessively on action at the top of the pile is a mistake

Varna, Bulgaria - September, 06, 2020 street drummer playing in the park with improvised means

Embed impact in PhD training from day one, says UCL doctoral head

Head of UK’s biggest PhD school says promoting impact in doctoral studies would make students more employable and research more visible

Competitors take part in the Men’s Veterans’ Race at the annual World Coal Carrying Championships to illustrate PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

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

A cyclist stops at a red light at a level crossing to illustrate PhD enrolment hangs on an email

How ‘will you be my supervisor’ emails control entry to PhD study

Late responses to PhD applicant enquiries and lack of signposting might contribute to poor ethnic minority representation at doctoral level, researchers say

Related universities

UK research’s islands of excellence need flood defences

As a loss-maker, research is under pressure as fears of insolvency rise. But universities must do all they can to shore up a key element of their impact

Illustration of people in the sea looking out at scientists on islands around display cabinets to illustrate Will the funding crisis confine UK research to elite universities?

Will the funding crisis confine UK research to elite universities?

At a time of increasing financial constraint, jobs are being shed even in UK departments that ride high in the Research Excellence Framework, while time allocations for research are being cut. Can a loss-making activity like research survive outside traditional institutions, asks Jack Grove

Average master’s fee higher than postgraduate loan for first time

While value of government-backed loan has increased by 21 per cent since 2017-18, average fees have soared by 43 per cent

Peer review will only do its job if referees are named and rated

We need a mechanism whereby academics can build a public reputation as referees and receive career benefits for doing so, says Randy Robertson

Featured jobs

More From Forbes

Want to break into leadership 5 tips from a woman who’s done it.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

Taurus founder Sharon Williams and Managing Director Samantha Sakr. In just 6 short years, Sakr has ... [+] grown from intern to running the 30-year-old company.

Currently, 27 and the Managing Director of Taurus, a tech-focused marketing agency in Australia, Samantha (Sam) Sakr doesn’t like to use the word leader. Instead, her goal is to ensure her team knows she’s in the trenches with them.

In just six short years, Sakr has gone from intern to running the company as Managing Director of the 30-year-old agency, making her one of Australia’s youngest MDs .

I recently spoke with Sakr to learn more about her unique journey and discovered that her success story illuminates behaviours that all women can adopt to accelerate their career progression.

Here are her 5 tips to help you break into senior leadership

1. take the initiative and ask for what you want..

This one is tough for many women, who struggle more than men to advocate for their accomplishments and career growth . Despite the reasons behind women’s reluctance to self-advocate, we know that doing so has numerous benefits . In Sakr’s case, it meant landing a job and setting her on the path to success.

Sakr was finishing her internship when she approached company founder Sharon Willams, who would later pass the torch to Sakr.

“I walked up to Sharon’s desk, and I said, ‘Good morning Sharon, when you have a spare five minutes today, at any point, can I please have a chat with you’,” Sakr recalls. Williams stopped what she was doing, and the two had a conversation where Sakr asked for feedback and expressed her interest in a position with the company.

New Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra Price Lands As Pixel 9 Releases

Why fans think ‘it ends with us’ stars blake lively, justin baldoni are feuding—as baldoni reportedly hires crisis pr, today’s nyt mini crossword clues and answers for wednesday, august 14.

Later, Sakr learned just how impressed Williams was by the interaction. Despite the many interns who had gone through the company, no one had ever approached her in this way.

The lesson: Whether you’re an intern, manager or VP, creating a dialogue and sharing your career goals with leadership will ensure they can help put you on that track.

2. Do the role before you have it.

You’ve probably heard this advice before; however, many don’t follow it. Instead, they wait for the title or promotion to start acting like a leader. If this sounds like you, you’re at a disadvantage. Taking on leadership responsibilities in your current role will help you get promoted because those around you will recognize you as a leader.

In Sakr’s case, she did just that, looking for opportunities to do more senior work, even before earning the title, and partially credits this for her growth within the company.

The lesson: Find ways to take on leadership responsibilities in your current role to demonstrate leadership abilities to your manager.

3. Think of the business as your own.

Sakr recalls advising an employee on how to handle a particular project, “I told her, think of it as if it were your wedding.” Her point was to put the same level of care into that project as she would were she planning her wedding day.

She shares that she stood out by putting herself in Williams’ shoes and making decisions based on that perspective.

The lesson: If you want to be in senior leadership, put yourself in the shoes of the company's senior leaders and ask yourself what they would do.

4. Be a good mentee.

“It’s one thing to have a mentor and another to be mentored,” says Sakr. She explains that everyone has an ego, and you need to put your ego aside to take feedback and also provide it.

Sakr believes giving feedback shows you care, even though she acknowledges how difficult it can be. Studies show that women are less likely to receive actionable feedback , which can hold them back.

Requesting actionable feedback and cultivating a relationship of trust where both can speak freely can create the right environment for this to happen.

The lesson: Don’t underestimate the power of being a good mentee. Instead of just focusing on receiving feedback, show you care by providing it as well.

5. Choose your boss wisely.

Sakr notes that Williams believed in her, trusted her, and provided the mentorship she needed to achieve rapid career growth. When choosing a workplace, she recommends finding a leader whose core values align with yours and who is approachable and open to feedback and ideas.

There are numerous articles describing the importance of mentorship for career progression . You can leverage this relationship regularly when your manager is also your mentor. The bottom line is that your manager matters.

The lesson: When choosing a new opportunity, strongly consider who your manager will be in addition to the company's and senior leadership team's core values.

Women still face obstacles in reaching senior leadership positions, and we see only modest gains in the number of women who reach senior leadership. With the right intentional action and support, we may be able to narrow this gap. The relationship between Sakr and Williams is a great example of women doing this by supporting one another in their leadership journeys.

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
Content that otherwise violates our site's terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
Actions that otherwise violate our site's terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

Stay on topic and share your insights
Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
Protect your community.
Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.

Colleen Long, Associated Press Colleen Long, Associated Press

Zeke Miller, Associated Press Zeke Miller, Associated Press

Steve Karnowski, Associated Press Steve Karnowski, Associated Press

Will Weissert, Associated Press Will Weissert, Associated Press

Seung Min Kim, Associated Press Seung Min Kim, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-harris-holds-first-rally-with-minnesota-gov-tim-walz-after-choosing-him-as-running-mate

WATCH: Harris holds first rally with Tim Walz, saying he’s ‘the kind of vice president America deserves’

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Kamala Harris introduced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to the nation at a raucous rally Tuesday in Philadelphia aimed at building momentum for the newly minted Democratic presidential ticket in the sprint toward Election Day.

Watch in the player above.

“He’s the kind of person who makes people feel like they belong and then inspires them to dream big. … That’s the kind of vice president America deserves,” Harris said.

Taking the microphone after Harris, Walz revved up the crowd for the rigorous campaign to come. “We’ve got 91 days. My God, that’s easy. We’ll sleep when we’re dead,” he said.

READ MORE: 5 things to know about Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ VP pick

The remarks reflected the urgency of the moment, with Harris tapping Walz for the ticket during one of the most turbulent periods in modern American politics. Republicans have rallied around former President Donald Trump after he was targeted in an attempted assassination in July. Just days later, President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign, forcing Harris to scramble to unify Democrats and decide on a running mate over a breakneck two-week stretch.

In choosing the 60-year-old Walz, Harris is elevating a Midwestern governor, military veteran and union supporter who helped enact an ambitious Democratic agenda for his state, including sweeping protections for abortion rights and generous aid to families.

It was her biggest decision yet as the Democratic nominee and she went with a broadly palatable choice — someone who says politics should have more joy and who deflects dark and foreboding rhetoric from Republicans with a lighter touch, a strategy that the campaign has been increasingly turning to since Harris took over the top spot.

WATCH: A look at Walz’s record and how he could bolster Democratic support in the Midwest

Harris hopes Walz will help her shore up her campaign’s standing across the upper Midwest, a critical region in presidential politics that often serves as a buffer for Democrats seeking the White House. The party remains haunted by Trump’s wins in Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016. Trump lost those states in 2020 but has zeroed in on them as he aims to return to the presidency this year and is expanding his focus to Minnesota.

Since Walz was announced, the team raised more than $10 million from grassroots donations, the campaign said.

Walz is far from a household name. An ABC News/Ipsos survey conducted before he was selected but after vetting began showed that nearly 9 in 10 U.S. adults did not know enough to have an opinion about him.

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Harris devoted much of her speech to telling the audience about Walz’s life and work, which included stints as a social studies teacher and a football coach.

“To those who know him best, Tim is more than a governor,” she said.

WATCH: Klobuchar says Walz is a ‘unifying, optimistic force’ that has been missing in politics

Harris, the first Black woman and person of South Asian descent to lead a major party ticket, initially considered nearly a dozen candidates before zeroing in on a handful of serious contenders.

Trump has focused much of his campaign on appealing to men, emphasizing a need for strength in national leadership and even featuring the wrestler Hulk Hogan on the final night of the Republican National Convention. Harris’ finalists — all white men — marked an acknowledgement of the Democrat’s need to at least try to win over some of that demographic.

She personally interviewed three finalists: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and Walz. Harris wanted someone with executive experience who could be a governing partner, and Walz also offered appeal to the widest swath of the diverse coalition.

His selection drew praise from lawmakers as ideologically diverse as progressive leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and independent Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a moderate who left the Democratic Party earlier this year.

READ MORE: Here’s how Americans feel about Tim Walz

A team of lawyers and political operatives led by former Attorney General Eric Holder pored over documents and conducted interviews with potential selections. Harris mulled the decision over on Monday with top aides and finalized it Tuesday morning, according to three people familiar with Harris’ decision who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.

Shapiro, an ambitious politician in his own right, struggled with the idea of being No. 2 at the White House and said he felt he had more to do in Pennsylvania, according to one of the people familiar with Harris’ decision. There was also public pushback to Shapiro for his stance on Israel from Arab American groups and younger voters angry over the administration’s response to the Israel-Hamas war.

The other contenders threw their support behind the ticket Tuesday, and Shapiro was one of the speakers at Tuesday’s Philadelphia rally. Biden described the Harris and Walz ticket as “a powerful voice for working people and America’s great middle class.”

Walz coined one of Democrats’ buzziest campaign bits to date, calling Trump and his running mate Ohio Sen. JD Vance “just weird,” a label that the Democratic Governors Association — of which Walz is chairman — amplified in a post on X and Democrats more broadly have echoed.

During a fundraiser for Harris on Monday in Minneapolis, Walz said: “It wasn’t a slur to call these guys weird. It was an observation.”

POLL: Harris boosts confidence that Democrats could win the 2024 election

Harris, second gentleman Doug Emhoff and Walz will spend the next five days touring critical battleground states, visiting Wisconsin and Michigan on Wednesday and Arizona and Nevada later in the week.

Vance, for his part, planned stops in some of the same areas. He said Tuesday that he called Walz earlier in the day and left a voice message.

The Trump campaign on Tuesday immediately tried to tag Walz as a far-left liberal.

“It’s no surprise that San Francisco Liberal Kamala Harris wants West Coast wannabe Tim Walz as her running-mate – Walz has spent his governorship trying to reshape Minnesota in the image of the Golden State,” said Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s campaign press secretary. “Walz is obsessed with spreading California’s dangerously liberal agenda far and wide.”

Walz, who grew up in the small town of West Point, Nebraska, was a teacher, coach and union member at Mankato West High School in Minnesota before entering politics.

He won the first of six terms in Congress in 2006 from a mostly rural southern Minnesota district and used the office to champion veterans issues. Walz served 24 years in the Army National Guard, rising to command sergeant major, one of the highest enlisted ranks in the military, although he didn’t complete all the training before he retired so his rank for benefits purposes was set at master sergeant.

He ran for governor in 2018 on the theme of “One Minnesota” and won by more than 11 points.

David Ivory, a 46-year-old St. Paul resident, rode over to Walz’s residence on his bike with his kids shortly after the announcement to deliver their congratulations.

“He’s just down to earth. He gets it. He can talk to anybody,” Ivory said. “He doesn’t seem like he’s above anybody.”

As governor, Walz had to find ways to work in his first term with a legislature split between a Democratic-controlled House and a Republican-led Senate. Minnesota has a history of divided government, though, and the arrangement was surprisingly productive in his first year.

Walz easily won reelection in 2022, and Democrats flipped the Senate to win full control of both chambers and the governor’s office for the first time in eight years. A big reason was the Dobbs decision from the conservative-majority Supreme Court that overturned a federal right to an abortion.

Walz currently serves as co-chair of the bipartisan Council of Governors, advising the president and the Cabinet on homeland security and national defense issues. He was first appointed to the position by Trump, then later reappointed by Biden.

Miller, Long and Kim reported from Washington. Karnowski reported from Minneapolis. Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo and Michelle L. Price in New York and Michael Goldberg in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

Support Provided By: Learn more

IMAGES

How to choose the right PhD supervisor?
How to choose a Good PhD Supervisor
How to Choose PhD Supervisor? 6 Key Things to Consider!
How to Select a PhD Supervisor?- A Guide for Students
How to choose your PhD supervisor
How to choose your PhD supervisor?

COMMENTS

Choosing a PhD Supervisor
Choosing a PhD Supervisor. Your PhD supervisor will play a vital part in your PhD, providing you with the mentorship, feedback and support you need to succeed. That's why it's so important to spend time finding a supervisor for your PhD who will be a great fit for you and your project. The role of a PhD supervisor is to use their own ...
Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor
Rule 8: Consider the entire experience. Your PhD supervisor is only one—albeit large—piece of your PhD puzzle. It is therefore essential to consider your PhD experience as whole when deciding on a supervisor. One important aspect to contemplate is your mental health.
How to choose the right PhD supervisor
Below are four tips that can help PhD candidates choose a suitable supervisor, and the red flags to watch out for: 1. Interview the supervisor. While most candidates focus on trying to impress a ...
Top tips for choosing a PhD Supervisor
4. Supportive of your career. You should try to choose a supervisor who has a demonstrable history of assisting students in launching their careers. Typically, a good supervisor would introduce pupils to his or her co-workers and let PhD students know about any seminars or conferences that are pertinent to their field of study and future plans.
Choosing a PhD supervisor? 9 Key Factors to Consider
9 Key Factors to Choose a PhD Supervisor / Guide / Advisor. 1. R&D Funded Project or Own Research Proposal. If you're applying for an R&D-funded project, the process of choosing a supervisor is simple. Usually, they will be the principal investigator of the project, you can join as a JRF ie., Junior Research Fellow in the project to do the ...
The PhD journey: how to choose a good supervisor
John Cowpe, a second-year PhD student from the University of Salford, agrees. "To get the most from your supervisor, you have to be interested in what they do. My supervisor will leap at any ...
Top tips for choosing a PhD Supervisor
4. Supportive of your career. You should try to choose a supervisor who has a demonstrable history of assisting students in launching their careers. Typically, a good supervisor would introduce pupils to his or her co-workers and let PhD students know about any seminars or conferences that are pertinent to their field of study and future plans.
What Makes A Good PhD Supervisor?
4. Is a Good Mentor with a Supportive Personality. A good PhD supervisor should be supportive and willing to listen. A PhD project is an exercise in independently producing a substantial body of research work; the primary role of your supervisor should be to provide mentoring to help you achieve this.
Choosing your PhD supervisor
You can then approach your selected potential supervisor (or several, if you're still deciding) with a tailored, well-written and passionate email. Make a positive first impression by: attaching your academic CV. avoiding overstatements or vague generalisations, while keeping your message clear and concise.
How to find a PhD supervisor
Choose a PhD supervisor who will help connect you with other researchers and forge collaborations and connections to further your research and career. Being approachable and open to communication. When figuring out how to find a PhD supervisor, it is most important that you choose one who will be available and easy to contact. ...
How to Choose Your PhD Supervisor
Make Contact. The easiest way to approach the people on your shortlist of potential supervisors is by sending them a quick email. To make a good impression, this email should be well-written, concise, and personalized to the recipient. Your email should: Clearly state your interest in doing a PhD with them. Describe your academic background and ...
How to Choose an Academic Supervisor: A Complete Guide
Your PhD supervisor will have a great deal of influence on your academic career. "A PhD is hard.But a good supervisor makes it much easier," says Emma Kathryn White, a PhD student in infrastructure engineering at the University of Melbourne in Australia.. In a recent study, Anna Sverdlik, an educational psychologist at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada, says that even though ...
How to Find the Right Research Supervisor for Your Research
Choose an expert in your subject area: One of the most critical factors to consider when choosing a PhD supervisor is their research expertise. A good place to start your search for a good PhD supervisor would be the faculty profiles of universities and research institutes. Look for faculty members who have focused expertise in your research ...
How to Find Your Ideal PhD Supervisor Using Google Scholar
Step 3: Identify papers of interest. You'll find that the papers returned in this search will be on topics related to your subject of interest, or not. Identify the ones that appear to overlap with the research you would like to do. If you find yourself drawn to a particular sub-topic within the papers returned, you can also re-do your search ...
What makes a good PhD supervisor?
Your PhD advisor will play a key role in ensuring your Doctor of Philosophy is a rewarding and enjoyable experience.. Choosing a PhD supervisor can therefore be a daunting prospect. But we've enlisted the help of 2 UQ PhD advisors and researchers, Dr Loic Yengo and Professor Marina Reeves, to pinpoint exactly what you should be looking for.
How to choose a good PhD supervisor
Along with choosing your research topic and writing your proposal, selecting your supervisor is one of the crucial steps in starting your PhD journey. Join us and 2 current candidates as we explore how to find a PhD supervisor in Australia. Your supervisor is going to be one of the most important people in your life for the next 3-4 years or more*.
How to get what you need from your Ph.D. or postdoc supervisor
How to get what you need from your Ph.D. or postdoc supervisor. For Ph.D. candidates and postdocs, the relationship with your supervisor can make or break a career. The onus for a positive and nurturing relationship should fall largely on the senior member. At the same time, supervisors are often overstretched and have their own priorities ...
What makes a good PhD supervisor? Top tips for managing the student
How to choose a PhD supervisor ... For most of your PhD journey, your supervisor will know more about your subject area than you do (there may become a stage where you overtake them, at least within the niche of your PhD study area), so their advice is really valuable. Most of the time, it will be in your best interest to follow it, and they ...
Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor
Rule 8: Consider the entire experience. Your PhD supervisor is only one—albeit large—piece of your PhD puzzle. It is therefore essen-tial to consider your PhD experience as whole when deciding on a supervisor. One important aspect to contemplate is your mental health.
The PhD Journey
Before beginning a PhD course, some key aspects should be decided: 1) Choosing your niche of interest. 2) Selecting an excellent supervisor. It is certainly easier to pursue your career when you identify a research problem that interests you. In addition, having shared interests with your mentor/supervisor will help build working relationships.
How to choose your PhD supervisor
How to choose your PhD supervisor comes down to these five secrets that you need to know. A PhD supervisor will dictate the success of your PhD as they will ...
How to be a PhD supervisor
My PhD supervisor taught me a valuable lesson about good supervision: it involves far more than teaching a doctoral student how to be a good writer and researcher. It is about believing in students' academic potential, fostering their confidence and supporting them on whichever of life's pathways they choose to take.
How to choose PhD supervisor? : r/AskAcademia
Your advisor must have expertise in those skills, so that you can become competitive applicant for those roles upon PhD completion. Other: Make sure your advisor is the department's top 10 percent in terms of funding. Talk to students from lab without informing advisor. This will give idea of culture.
Frontiers
1 Introduction. Effective doctoral supervision is crucial for guiding PhD candidates through the complexities of their research, ensuring academic rigor and the successful completion of their dissertations (Bastalich, 2017; Wichmann-Hansen, 2021; Kálmán et al., 2022).The role of PhD supervisors during the pandemic and their impact on educational quality at various levels has been an under ...
Junior researchers 'cited more if PhD supervisor is well known'
The "impact persistence" between PhD mentors and mentees was slightly higher if the supervisor was female, the researchers note, suggesting that this is "possibly owing to female mentors having a lasting positive impact on mentees or providing career development facilitation to a larger extent than male mentors".
How to Choose the Right MBA Application Round
Key Takeaways. Multiple admission rounds give applicants flexibility. Showing commitment to a program is essential in any round. For very competitive programs, apply as early as possible.
Want To Break Into Leadership? 5 Tips From A Woman Who's Done It
Choose your boss wisely. Sakr notes that Williams believed in her, trusted her, and provided the mentorship she needed to achieve rapid career growth. When choosing a workplace, she recommends ...
WATCH: Harris holds first rally with Tim Walz, saying he's 'the kind of
In choosing the 60-year-old Walz, Harris is elevating a Midwestern governor, military veteran and union supporter who helped enact an ambitious Democratic agenda for his state, including sweeping ...

On this page

Finding an expert in your field

Who can supervise a PhD student?

Contacting a PhD supervisor

How to choose a PhD supervisor

What are the qualities of a good PhD supervisor?

#1 Substantial research expertise

#2 Clear about their career plans

#3 Previous experience as a PhD supervisor

#4 Personality

#5 Organisational skills

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

PhD supervisor guide

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

Select your nearest city

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your account

How to choose the right PhD supervisor

1. Interview the supervisor

2. Get an outside perspective

3. Look beyond the PhD

4. Consider the supervisor’s working style

Sign up to the Nature Index newsletter

Choosing a PhD supervisor? 9 Key Factors to Consider

9 Key Factors to Choose a PhD Supervisor / Guide / Advisor

2. Check Scientific Databases

3. Career stage of your potential supervisor

4. Check Recent Publications

5. Prior Meeting

6. During the meeting

7. Status of Current PhD Scholars

8. Research Facilities and Funding

9. Collaboration

Bonus: Secret Tips in Choosing a PhD supervisor?

All The Best!

Follow us on Pinterest: iLovePhD

10 Types of Plagiarism – Every Academic Writer Should Know – Updated

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Mail Subscription

Google News

The PhD journey: how to choose a good supervisor

It’s a love-hate thing

Storm warning

And the worst bits?

Words of wisdom

Jungle fever

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

More from New Scientist

1 in 5 people in a coma may be aware of their surroundings

Top astrobiologist explores the possibilities of alien life

Don't disrespect Alan Turing by reanimating him with AI

Dramatic images show the dark side of cobalt mining boom

Your browser is unsupported

Graduate College

What are the qualities of a good supervisor?

Community Blog

What Makes A Good PhD Supervisor?

Introduction

The Role of a PhD Supervisor

Qualities to Look For in A Good PhD Supervisor

2. Is an Expert in their Field of Research

3. Has Enough Time to Provide Good PhD Supervision

4. Is a Good Mentor with a Supportive Personality

Browse PhDs Now

Join Thousands of Students

Choosing your PhD supervisor

How do I find a PhD supervisor?

How do I approach a potential supervisor?

How do I make a good impression?

What qualities does a good supervisor possess?

How do I develop a positive relationship with my supervisor?

What can my supervisor help me with?

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

How do I change my PhD supervisor?

Find out more

How would you rate this page?

How to Choose Your PhD Supervisor

Discover related jobs

Discover similar employers

Accelerate your academic career