masters thesis supervision

• Support & FAQ

Effective master’s thesis supervision – A Summative Framework for research and practice

• Maastricht Observatory on Resilient, Responsible & Sustainable Enterprise and Economy
• Educational Research and Development
• GSBE other - not theme-related research

Research output : Contribution to journal › (Systematic) Review article › peer-review

• master's thesis supervision
• student-supervisor relationship
• student characteristics
• supervisor characteristics
• supervisor actions
• systematic literature review

Access to Document

• 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100589 Licence: CC BY

Fingerprint

• Master's Thesis Supervision Keyphrases 100%
• education INIS 100%
• School Graduate Social Sciences 100%
• Systematic Review Social Sciences 100%
• Evidence-Based Social Sciences 100%
• Masters Degrees Social Sciences 100%
• Graduate School Computer Science 100%
• Individual Student Computer Science 100%

T1 - Effective master’s thesis supervision – A Summative Framework for research and practice

AU - Grohnert, Therese

AU - Gromotka, Lena

AU - Gast, Inken

AU - Delnoij, Laurie

AU - Beausaert, Simon

N1 - Data availability All studies reviewed in this study are listed and described in the paper proper

PY - 2024/2

Y1 - 2024/2

N2 - Each year, more students worldwide enter graduate school to complete their master's degree. A cornerstone of their education is the master's thesis. Respectively, master's thesis supervisors hold a key role in higher education teaching, yet no evidence-based overview currently exists of elements that make thesis supervision effective. Based on a systematic literature review, this study presents a summative framework of what is currently known about elements and their relationships that constitute effective master's thesis supervision, focusing on the interactions between individual students and supervisors. We develop an input-process-outcome framework based on 36 existing studies, identifying student and supervisor outcomes, characteristics of an effective student-supervisor relationship along with actions that students and supervisors can take to create and maintain it, along with student and supervisor characteristics that serve as critical inputs for an effective supervision process. We find that current research emphasizes the role of supervisor attitudes and actions in relation to the student-supervisor relationship, while future research is needed on student actions, supervisor learning over time, and contextual characteristics. Following our framework, we generate avenues for future research and summarize effective supervision practices in the dynamic and complex context of master's thesis supervision.

AB - Each year, more students worldwide enter graduate school to complete their master's degree. A cornerstone of their education is the master's thesis. Respectively, master's thesis supervisors hold a key role in higher education teaching, yet no evidence-based overview currently exists of elements that make thesis supervision effective. Based on a systematic literature review, this study presents a summative framework of what is currently known about elements and their relationships that constitute effective master's thesis supervision, focusing on the interactions between individual students and supervisors. We develop an input-process-outcome framework based on 36 existing studies, identifying student and supervisor outcomes, characteristics of an effective student-supervisor relationship along with actions that students and supervisors can take to create and maintain it, along with student and supervisor characteristics that serve as critical inputs for an effective supervision process. We find that current research emphasizes the role of supervisor attitudes and actions in relation to the student-supervisor relationship, while future research is needed on student actions, supervisor learning over time, and contextual characteristics. Following our framework, we generate avenues for future research and summarize effective supervision practices in the dynamic and complex context of master's thesis supervision.

KW - master's thesis supervision

KW - student-supervisor relationship

KW - student characteristics

KW - supervisor characteristics

KW - supervisor actions

KW - systematic literature review

U2 - 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100589

DO - 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100589

M3 - (Systematic) Review article

SN - 1747-938X

JO - Educational Research Review

JF - Educational Research Review

M1 - 100589

Supervising a Master’s Thesis

The online module provides general information about the different aspects of supervising a master’s thesis:

• What are the difficulties that students often encounter during their master’s thesis and how can you support them?
• How do you prepare for the first meeting with your student?
• What are the characteristics of a good supervisor ?
• The main challenges of a supervisory process and how you can deal with them
• The importance of feedback

It also offers tips & tricks and exercises that will stimulate you to translate the input to your practice and reflect upon it. In the final assignment, you will evaluate your role as a supervisor and design a plan to optimise your supervisory practice.

Your final assignment will be graded on a pass/fail basis. If you pass, you will receive a Certificate of Completion for the module.

Your time investment for this module will be 8 hours or 0.3 ECTS credits.

Additional information 

• Activating your Students  which focuses on different aspects of engaging (or ‘activating’) students.
• Start to Teach which covers the basics of teaching with topics such as ‘how to prepare for class’, ‘how to interact with your students’ and ‘classroom management’.
• Supporting Academic Writing about how to help students evolve in their writing skills.
• Open for everyone!
• Designed for junior teaching assistants or PhD students (AAP/BAP)

Register now

• KU Leuven Learning Lab

Master Thesis Supervision

Cite this chapter.

• Judith H. Semeijn 5 ,
• Janjaap Semeijn &
• Kees J. Gelderman  

Part of the book series: Advances in Business Education and Training ((ABET,volume 2))

866 Accesses

1 Citations

An increasing number of educators are actively involved in master thesis supervision as part of their daily responsibilities. Master of Science degrees are becoming increasingly popular, with a master thesis required for the completion of the degree program. As a result, the supervisory staff involved in the supervision process at universities and institutes of higher learning is broadening and includes people with limited supervisory experience.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

An Approach for Continuous Supervision of Bachelor’s and Master’s Theses in Engineering Studies

Final Year Research Supervision in the English Department: Attributes, Challenges, and Supervisory Practices

Allen, G. R. (1973). The graduate students’ guide to theses and dissertations: A Practical manual for writing and research . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar  

Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Introduction: Blended Learning: Research and Practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7 (1).

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2005). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs . New York: Pfeiffer.

BKO. (2006). Retrieved on August 18, 2008 http://www.iso.nl/Portals/0/documenten/Thema/Basiskwalificatie%20Onderwijs%202006.pdf

Burgess, R. G., Pole, C. J., & Hockey, J. (1994). Strategies for managing and supervising the Social Science PhD. In R. Burgess (Ed.), Postgraduate education and training in the social sciences: Processes and products (pp. 12–33). London: Kingsley.

Buswell, G. T. (1932). The doctor’s dissertation. The Journal of Higher Education, 3 (3).

Cunningham, S. J. (2004). How to write a thesis. Journal of Orthodontics, 31 , 144–148.

Article   Google Scholar  

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2001). Supervising the PhD. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Dillon, M. J., & Malott, R. W. (1981). Supervising masters theses and doctoral dissertations. Teaching and Psychology, 8 (3), 195–202.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13 , 533–568.

Garcia, M. E., Mallot, R. W., & Brethower, D. (1988). A system of thesis and dissertation supervision: Helping graduate students succeed. Teaching of Psychology, 7 , 89–92.

Gijselaers, W. H. (1996, Winter). Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. In L. Wilkerson & W. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice . New Directions in Teaching and Learning Series. No. 68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hauck, A. J., & Chen, C. (1998). Using action research as a viable alternative for graduate theses and dissertations in construction management. Journal of Construction Education, 3 (2).

Holligan, C. (2005). Fact and fiction: A case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research, 47 (3).

Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4 , 1–28.

Long, T. J., Convey, J. J., & Chwalek, A. R. (1985). Completing dissertations in the behavioral sciences . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marsh, H. W., Rowe, K. J., & Martin, A. (2002). PhD students’ evaluations of research supervision: Issues, complexities, and challenges in a nationwide Australian experiment in Benchmarking Universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (3)

Mauch, J. E., & Birch, J. W. (1998). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation. Conception to publication: A handbook for students and faculty (4th ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.

Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatie Organisatie/NVAO. (2003). Accreditatiekader bestaande opleidingen hoger onderwijs, February. Referentie compleet?

Picciano, A. G., & Dziuban, C. D. (Eds.). (2007). Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Rau, A. (2005). Supervision: A Foucaultian exploration of institutional and interpersonal power relations between postgraduate supervisors, their students and the university domain . PhD thesis, Rhodes University.

Romme, G. L. (2003). Organizing education by drawing on organization studies. Organization Studies, 24 (5).

Ryan, Y., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Eds.). (1999). Supervising postgraduates from non-English speaking backgrounds. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning: Illuminating perspectives. Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press.

Semeijn, J. H., Velden, R. van der, Heijke, H., Vleuten, C. van der, & Boshuizen, H. (2006). Competence indicators in academic education and early labour market success of graduates in health sciences. Journal of Work and Education, 19 (4).

Schmidt, H., Vermeulen, L., & Van der Molen, H. T.,(2004). Longterm effects of problem-based learning: A comparison of competencies acquired by graduates of a problem-based and a conventional medical school. Medical Education, 40 (2).

Teitelbaum, H. (1998). How to write a thesis. Prentice Hall & IBD, 1998.

Thomas, C. (1995). Helping students complete master’s theses through active supervision. Journal of Management Education, 19 (2).

Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the doctorate, institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher education, 25 (2).

Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: Ameta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (6).

Zuber-Skerrit, O., & Fletcher, M. (2007). The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences. Quality Assurance in Education, 15 (4).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Management, Open Universiteit Nederland, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419, Heerlen, AT, The Netherlands

Judith H. Semeijn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith H. Semeijn .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Business Communic. & Language Studies, EDHEC Business School, 58 Rue du Port, 59046, Lille, France

Inst. Education & Information Sciences, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium

David Gijbels

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Semeijn, J.H., Semeijn, J., Gelderman, K.J. (2009). Master Thesis Supervision. In: Daly, P., Gijbels, D. (eds) Real Learning Opportunities at Business School and Beyond. Advances in Business Education and Training, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2973-7_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2973-7_14

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-90-481-2972-0

Online ISBN : 978-90-481-2973-7

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2019

The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study

• Leila Bazrafkan 1 ,
• Alireza Yousefy 2 ,
• Mitra Amini 1 &
• Nikoo Yamani 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  19 , Article number:  320 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

9894 Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Supervision is a well-defined interpersonal relationship between the thesis supervisors and their students. The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns which can explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors. We aimed at developing a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

We have conducted a qualitative grounded theory study in 20 universities of medical sciences in Iran since 2017 by using purposive, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling and enrolled 84 participants. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Based on the encoding approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998), the data underwent open, axial, and selective coding by constant comparative analysis. Then, the core variables were selected, and a model was developed.

We could obtain three themes and seven related subthemes, the central variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the subthemes, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions during expertise process which generated the supervisors’ competence development in research supervision consisted maturation; also, seven subthemes as curious observation, evaluation of the reality, poorly structured rules, lack of time, reflection in action, reflection on action, and interactive accountability emerged which explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors.

Conclusions

As the core variable in the expertise process, accountability must be considered in expertise development program planning and decision- making. In other words, efforts must be made to improve responsibility and responsiveness.

Peer Review reports

Supervision is a well-defined term in the interpersonal relationship between thesis supervisors and students. A supervisor is designated to assist the student’s development in terms of their research project [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Faculty members supervise the students because qualified supervision leads to success on the part of the student, and it has moral, reputational, and financial outcomes for the institution. Supervisors are expected to train students to gain competence in areas such as specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills [ 4 ]. Expertise is derived from the three essential elements of knowledge, experience, and the ability to solve problems in society [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. .According to Dreyfus, acquisition of expertise or practical wisdom represents a higher level of “self-actualization.” At this point, one reaches a level in which they can flourish in their talents and abilities. This enables the teachers to function in scientific communities and multicultural environments [ 7 ].

Wiscer has identified three stages in the thesis supervision process and describes the duties of the supervisors in each of them [ 8 ]. Pearson and Brew state that maturation in specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills are the major areas that need to be promoted in the student. Moreover, these are the generic processes in which the supervisors should be involved for efficacious supervision if they aim to help the students develop in various institutional, disciplinary and professional settings; acquire appropriate expertise and features needed for employment; and make an outline of what might form a flexible professional development program for supervisors in this setting [ 3 ]. Vereijken et al. emphasized novice supervisors’ approaches to reach expertise in supervision and explained the relationship between practice and dilemmas among novice supervisors [ 9 ].

.Despite the importance of expertise in higher education and particularly research supervision, research abilities are not considered as one of the priorities in the employment of the academic staff. Furthermore, the newly employed faculty members are often involved in teaching, administrative tasks, and services in health care; this inhibits them from expertise attainment in other aspects such as research supervision [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In this regard, Malekafzali believes that in the area of research activities, the faculty members have serious weaknesses in defining the problem, choosing the appropriate method for research, analyzing the data, interpreting the results, and publishing scientific articles. Besides, there is a lack of coherent and compiled training programs which can enhance their research capabilities [ 13 ].

One of the most important factors contributing to the thesis and research quality is the process of developing expertise in supervisors’ research supervision. Most studies in our country have focused on research abilities during the research, and fewer studies have focused on the process of expertise acquisition in thesis supervision, and no actual model has been proposed for this [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The quantitative researches could not explain exactly how and through which process the faculty members, as thesis supervisors, become experts in thesis supervision since the expertise process is multi-factorial and has many unknown aspects. Considering the effective role of qualitative research in clarifying ambiguous and unknown aspects, we chose the grounded theory approach for this study [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. This theory will be used when the investigator intends to determine the patterns of actions and social interactions needed for the development of expertise by specific groups of people in a specific setting [ 17 , 18 ].

In this study, we aimed to identify the themes that explain the expertise development process among thesis supervisors in Iran, and also to develop a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

This study was carried out in 20 universities of medical sciences with different ranks in Iran because universities are the places where supervisors and students interact purposefully to discourse the needs of experts on specific occasions and in specific conditions. In these universities, different students study with various disciplines. There are three types of universities in Iran. Type 1 universities are the ones with the most facilities, faculties, research presentations, international collaborations, and scientific outcomes. The second rank belongs to type 2, and the one with the least mentioned qualities is type 3 universities. All three types of universities were included in this study. In all these courses, writing a thesis is one of the requirements with the same role and regulation. The majority of the students in this research project were in the late stages of both undergraduate and postgraduate educational programs within the same function and regulation.

Study design

We conducted this qualitative study based on a grounded theory approach in a systematic form [ 17 , 18 ]. Grounded theory is a symbolic interaction which is derived from systematic data collection during the research process. In this strategy, collecting and analyzing data and the theory derived from the data have a close association [ 17 , 19 ]. The investigator’s purpose in using grounded theory is to describe and clarify a phenomenon in the social condition and to identify the essential processes working within [ 17 ].

Participants

In this study, 84 subjects including 56 faculty members of medical sciences, 20 undergraduate and postgraduate students (medical students, MS of Science, Ph.D. and residents), and eight managers in the field of research supervision participated. Using purposive sampling, snowball sampling with maximum variation, we selected the participants from a variety of academic ranks with different work experiences, as the key informants in thesis supervisors. Then, to continue the sampling, we used theoretical sampling and data saturation. The inclusion criterion was 5 years of work experience in thesis supervision, and the exclusion criterion was the unwillingness to participate in the study. Firstly, we collected data in Shiraz University with the help of a research supervisor who is known for his high quality of supervision and then data gathering was initiated in the university of Isfahan. There were 34 key informants from the two universities and 22 individuals from other universities. Students were selected based on their willingness to participate.

Theoretical sampling was used next to develop the tentative theory. The basis for theoretical sampling was the queries that emerged during data analysis. At this stage, the researcher interviewed the supervisor, administrators, and students. Theoretical sampling facilitated in verifying the supervisors’ responses and credibility of categories and resulted in more conceptual density. Data saturation was obtained when no new data emerged in the last five interviews. Therefore, data gathering by interviews was terminated.

Data collection

We collected the data primarily by semi-structured interviews from September 2017 to September 2018. The participants were recognized with unknown codes based on their field of work and setting, and each participant was interviewed in one or two sessions. Having obtained the participants’ informed consent, we recorded the interviews and they were transcribed verbatim immediately. The interviews began with open-ended general questions such as, “What did you experience during research supervision?” and then the participants were asked to describe their perceptions regarding their expertise process. Leading questions were also used to deeply explore the conditions, processes, and other factors that participants recognized as significant issues. The interview was based mostly on the questions which came up during the interview. On average, each interview lasted for an hour, during which field notes and memos were taken. At the end of each session, the participants were asked to give an opinion on other important topics which did not come up during the interview, followed by data collection and analysis which are simultaneously done in grounded theory; analytic thought and queries that arose from one interview were carried to the next one [ 20 ].

The data were also collected by unstructured observations of the educational atmosphere in the laboratory, and the faculty member and students’ counseling offices. These observations lasted 5 weeks, during which the faculties and students’ interactions and the manner of supervision were closely monitored. The observation was arranged to sample the maximum variety of research supervisor activity for some faculty member who is known to be a good or poor supervisor and detailed organized field notes were kept.

Also, we used the field notes to reflect emergent analytic concepts as a source of three angulations of data, frequently reconsidering the data, and referring to field notes in the context of each participant’s explanation. Analysis of the field notes facilitated in shaping contextual conditions and clarifying variations in the supervisors’ responses in each context. This led to the arrangement of several assumptions in the effect of contexts.

Data analysis

We simultaneously performed data collection and analysis. We read the scripts carefully several times and then entered them into MAXQDA (version10). We collected and analyzed the data practically and simultaneously by using a constant comparative method. Data were analyzed based on the 3-stage coding approach, including open, axial, and selective coding by Strauss and Corbin In the open coding stage, we extracted the basic concepts or meaning units from the gathered information. Then, more general concepts were formed by grouping similar concepts into one theme. The themes became clearer throughout the interviews. Then, the constructs of them were compared with each other to form tentative categories. After that, we conducted axial coding by using the guidelines given in Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) Paradigm Model [ 21 ]. The extracted themes (codes) in the previous (open coding) stage were summarized in 3 main themes during the axial coding stage, and then the core variables were selected in the selective coding stage [ 20 ]. To generate a reasonable theory to the community, a grounded theorist needs to condense the studied happenings a the precise sequence. To check the data against categories, the researcher asks questions related to certain categories and returns to the data to seek evidence. After developing a theory, the researcher is required to confirm the theory by comparing it with existing theories found in the recently available research [ 21 ]. We finalized the model after 5 days; during this time, we explained the relations between subcategories and the core category for realizing theoretical saturation and clarifying the theoretical power of the analysis explained about work as narration.

In terms of accuracy improvement, we used the Lincoln and Guba’s criteria, including credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability [ 22 , 23 ].

To increase credibility, we collected data from different universities in Iran, and their credibility was also confirmed by three reviewers and experts in qualitative research. Also, some of the participants rechecked the data and the investigators’ description and interpretation of their experiences carefully. Prolonged engagement and tenacious observation facilitated the data credibility. In this way, the process of data collection and analysis took 12 months. Data triangulation and method triangulation also confirmed credibility [ 20 ]. The use of the maximum variation sampling method contributed to the dependability and conformability of data. Furthermore, once the explanation of the phenomenon was full, it was returned for confirmation to 3 participants of each university, and they validated the descriptions. Finally, to attain transferability, we adequately described the data in this article, so that a judgment of transferability can be made by readers.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were informed about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

In this study, the mean age of the faculty members and students was 44.34 ± 14.60 and 28.54 ± 2.38 years, respectively. All the faculty members and most of the students were married. Only three students were single. Three themes and seven interrelated sub-themes emerged from the data (Table  1 ). The main variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the categories, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions of the expertise process are displayed in a model (Fig.  1 ).

The process of expertise attainment in research supervisor model

Theme 1: engagement

In this theme, the initial phase of expertise, the supervisor starts to observe the others’ behavior in the students’ supervision and guidance based on the practical and cognitive skills previously acquired. They attempt to recognize the different needs based on the amount of their motivation and previous competence so that the models become important for them, and they recognize the scope of the needs based on their importance. Then, they try to understand the needs and values of real thesis supervision in this context. In this theme, two sub-themes, curious observation, and evaluation with reality emerged.

Curious observation

In this sub-theme, several concepts such as personal interest, self-awareness, ability to meet the students’ needs, ability to detect weaknesses in research skills, and observation of role models in this area act as the impellent factors in expertise attainment in research supervision.

Regarding personal interest, a successful faculty member in the area of research supervision said:

“…In my experience, faculties must be selected from those who have curious personalities as well as being good observers, first of all. In this way, they will have the appropriate intrinsic character to acquire knowledge in guidance and supervision)…” (Faculty member N0.3)

According to our participants, the most important intrinsic motivation is the desire to update the content knowledge and skills in research supervision. An experienced professor said:

“ … The knowledge gap between the new and old generations of faculty members is what forced me to update my knowledge...and it has been detected by myself…” (Faculty member N0.3).

Another important intrinsic motivation is the ability to meet the educational and research needs of students. However, usually these needs are combined; one of the faculty members put it:

“…I would like to be an expert in this process (thesis supervision) to meet my students’ needs. Because I have seen and felt this need many times before…” (Faculty member N0.12).

Since the publication of research directly affects the promotion of a faculty, some professors seek skills that are practical in article publication such as several statistical and basic skills for thesis writing. The participants considered the self-awareness and consciousness elements as very important. Through consciousness, one can better understand their needs.

Evaluation with reality

In this sub-theme, in the initial phase maintaining academic dignity and competition motivates the faculty members to obtain expertise in research supervision. At this point, the supervisor evaluates themself and their potentialities considering more precise features and acquired information (or data), so that they can find the distance between the optimal state and the existing conditions. They also evaluate the others’ potentialities in this field realistically and compete. Good supervision is then highlighted for them. Based on the supervisors’ experience, at this stage, they are seriously engaged in evaluation and competition.

Another motivation was obtaining academic and social promotion. Although the number of theses supervised by them can affect the academic promotion of supervisors, this effect is insignificant. The real motivation is maintaining academic dignity and competition amongst peers. A member of the clinical faculties stated:

“ … To enhance academic dignity, a faculty member should master various skills such as patient care, teaching, educational skills, and last but not least, research supervision. I got involved in research and thesis supervision because I felt I should not be left behind…” ( Faculty member N0.17).

At this stage, the junior supervisor tries to increase the cognitive knowledge in research supervision such as increasing specific knowledge of the discipline, planning, directing of a project effectively, and developing good interpersonal skills presented in research supervision.

Theme 2: supervision climate

In this theme, we describe the contextual factor which changes the process of expertise attainment in thesis supervisors. The result of the study reflects some concerns about the relationship between individuals in the context in that they interact purposefully but with barriers. The supervision climate in the thesis supervision process in this theme led to the emergence of two sub-themes, challenging shortcomings and role ambiguity. These challenges include poorly structured rules and regulations which, in turn, can cause confusion and role ambiguity.

Challenging shortcomings

This report shows that contextual factor plays a significant role in promoting the quality of a thesis in a university, but the process is faced with altered challenges such as inadequate resources, inadequate time, and ineffective evaluation and rule and regulation deficit. These challenges include the following. Most faculty members and students have experienced these shortcomings.

Various inadequate resources, such as access to new and online journals, laboratory equipment were one of the challenges for supervisors in certain aspects which required more competency, and the constraints on communication with the other academic centers worldwide undermine the sense of competition and hinder the effort put in to become an expert. One of the students said: “… I see how difficult it is to gain access to a good article or laboratory materials in this situation …we try, but it just isn’t possible...” (Faculty member N0.17).

Based on our results, the sudden changes in personal life, work position, and organizational change can affect the path to expertise. These changes such as marriage, work overload, admission of students over the capacity, new rules and regulation of scholar citizenship, promotion and so on can have both positive and negative impacts, depending on whether they facilitate or restrict the professional development of faculties as supervisors. For instance, an increase in student admission causes work overload, which results in neglecting self-improvement.

“…As you know, we are over- loaded with students (they have increased the number of admissions), which is beyond our capacity. This means that most of our time will be dedicated to teaching. Self-improvement is difficult due to lack of time…” (Faculty member N0.6).

Role ambiguity

Poorly structured supervision can occur where there is an ambiguous context of supervision structure, supervisors and students’ roles. Most participants, as faculty members, managers, and students have experienced some difficulties in this regard, due to poorly structured rules(EDITORS NOTE; do you mean ‘rules and regulations ‘here) and regulations and its impact on the thesis supervision. It is not only the rules themselves but also the way they are implemented. One of the faculty members expressed confusion over the rules related to the dissertation as follows:

“…It should be made clear what I must do exactly. It is obvious regarding supervision on the work of students; there are not the same expectations from an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and a professor. Most problems occur as a result of the gap in legislation; For example, the rules imply a full Professor does not need a statistical consult, while many supervisors like me do not have enough knowledge and skills in statistical analysis...” (Faculty member N0.1).

Failure to implement the rules also increases the sense of this ambiguity, and there are no specific rules for verifying capability and audits to determine inadequate experts in thesis supervision. The role ambiguity or unclear roles and responsibilities of the supervisor and student in the thesis process were other limitations that were emphasized by the majority of participants. A faculty member stated:

“… Supervisors have different roles during the thesis process. To enhance this process, one must exactly know one’s responsibilities. For instance, in the beginning, the supervisor should guide the students through the process of finding a suitable research topic, but if the teacher's role is unclear, then instead of guiding they may actually choose the topic, and if so, the students will be prevented from exploring, using their creative thinking, and improving their problem-solving abilities…” (Faculty member N0.1).

Various performance

Based on the participants’ experiences, in this situation in which there are inadequate resources and organizational and social problems, some faculty members are well-trained in the field of supervision. One of the senior faculty members said: “It is my honor to mention that despite the existence of many obstacles, I have been able to train well-educated students, who have become researchers and contribute to the development of science in my country.”

One of the most important causes of poor performance is ineffective evaluation. Based on the participants experiences, two main problems can result in ineffective evaluation. First of all is the inadequate feedback from the supervisor which leads to unmotivated learners and the second one is lack of feedback from the stakeholders and educational institutes which in turn diminishes the supervisor’s efforts toward self-improvement. These can lead to poor performance both in students and supervisors.

In one of the Ph.D. student’s words:

“…In this system, there is no supervision on the supervisors; there is no control or evaluation of their work. Also, the supervisors don't get feedback from their students during the research process, and there is no third person who investigates whether the report is real or not…” (student N0. 7).

Evidence from data suggests that an unfair judgment and evaluation of academic theses are other problems in the process of acquiring the merit of teachers. If there isn’t proper evaluation, students and supervisors would not have the right standards to correct their performance.

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student had experienced:

“…I was so thrilled that my thesis supervisor was an experienced, older and well-known professor, but unfortunately, I soon found out that not only was his scientific knowledge outdated, but also he lacked the necessary supervision skills, so he let the students do all the work unsupervised. He did not take any responsibility during the process…” (Student N0.4).

Another point which leads to poor performance is the fact that some faculty members do not comprehend the main purpose of the thesis writing process; actually, they do not know the difference between teaching and guiding in the project or thesis supervision. One of the basic science supervisors said: “… Some faculties consider a thesis as research work and not a lesson in which research methodology should be taught...” (Faculty member N0.5).

Performing poorly along with ignoring professional ethics can also lead to increased tension and stress in student-teacher relationships. This can result in despondency and frustration in both students and teachers and create a vicious cycle of inefficient supervisors who will train inefficient students or future supervisors.

One of the students put it this way:

“...I feel the absence of a supervisor in my research; I would have been more successful, and my results would have been better if I had had more guidance.” (Student N0.6).

Theme 3: maturation

In this theme, the secondary phase of expertise, the individual is emotionally involved and feels that success or failure is important. This is a stage in which the learner needs an integrated schedule to be competent, and as a result, success or failure will follow. The supervisors frequently think about personal promotion and takes action in this way. They try out different approaches, and sometimes due to disappointment and embarrassment they fail. Some individuals quit at this stage and never reach competence, or they have what may be called an artificial competence. And this does not mean that they are not considered to be well-known supervisors; rather, they know, as do the students, that they are not competent. At this stage, the supervisor attempts to acquire the identity of a researcher and tries to enhance his availability, and be dutiful, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic in research supervision. Along the lines of this theme, three sub-themes of Reflection in action, Reflection on action, and Interactive accountability emerged.

Reflection in action

In this sub-theme, the patterns of expertise development begin, and self-directed learning, participatory teaching and learning strategies through a hidden curriculum are considered. At this stage, the supervisor tries to follow self-directed learning, and the amount of time allocated to expertise acquirement seems to be one of the most important factors. In this regard, one stated:

“…My success in this case (research supervision) is, first of all, due to self-evaluation and self-effort. For instance, to be in control and take full responsibility, I think about everything related to the guidance of the students, and I felt the need to master every aspect of research, even the statistical skills needed for analysis…” (Faculty member N0.8).

The supervisors’ activities were divided into two groups: self-directed –learning strategy and gaining experience through individual effort. Expertise requires continuous interaction and experience. They evaluate their learning, and by this, they experience the manner of managing and allocating time for effective supervision. According to participants, the amount of time allocation for expertise seems to be one of the most important factors for self-directed learning and expertise acquirement.

The formal training workshops provided an opportunity for supervisors with similar terms and the same problems in terms of learning experiences, environmental features, students, and educational problems to come together in one place. Participants also considered the formal participatory teaching necessary since it can provide an opportunity for the peers to get together and exchange their experiences. As a clinical faculty member put it:

“…Collaborative strategies can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the facilitation of experience exchanges amongst teachers, peers, and colleagues and modeling the behavior of teachers and teaching workshops that emphasize the importance of their expertise in research supervision…” (Faculty member N0.1).

In our participants’ experience, this self-directed learning is effective if, and only if, it is done accompanied by proper training and participatory teaching. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. As an example, one of the students in this field said:

“…my supervisor was a great teacher and put in a lot of time and effort on my thesis supervision; however, due to his lack of research skills, I had to change my thesis proposal three times. However, after he participated in a training course at the University of Oxford, his progress was unbelievable and impressive…and I saw his expertise…” (Student N0.11).

One of the faculty members also quoted:

“…When the teachers feel a gap in their knowledge or skill, the university must provide a comfortable, appropriate, and easy way for learning them …” (Faculty member N0.10).

Regarding this subject, one of the Managers in this field stated:

“…Another improvement strategy is the use of interpersonal interactions among faculty members, these instructive interpersonal interactions among the faculty members in similar conditions make it possible to benefit from peers’ feedback …” (Manager N0.1).

A hidden curriculum strategy, like learning through trial and error can also affect the expertise process. One of the professors expressed:

“… Learning through trial and error is very effective; through the supervision of each thesis, we learn some of our mistakes and try not to remake them in the next one …” (Faculty member N0.3).

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student’s experience:

Reflection on action

The learner provides an integrated schedule for their competence and uses all the facilitators and facilities around them for further efficiency and promotion. This stage is named Conditional Self-efficacy by expertise experience. At this stage, the supervisor is considered a competent individual who can guide the students based on the experiences of specialized and non-specialized faculty members.

In this regard, one of the students said:

“…I can acknowledge that my supervisor functioned very impressively in this thesis, but guidance and supervision are not static; rather, it is an active process. To be a good supervisor, the faculty members should try to keep up to date and revise their attitudes, duties, and their specialty and knowledge. …” (Student N0.3).

According to the participants, at this stage the supervisors have achieved meta-competence and general characteristics or professional value; are able to guide the students and others; and develop characteristics such as acquiring specific knowledge of the discipline, especially well-organized knowledge, planning, directing of a project effectively, having good interpersonal skills, and being dutiful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic in research.

One of the PhD students states: “… My supervisor is typical of an expert. His ingenious inquiries, extraordinary attention to science and his personality have always been admired and he has been a role model for me…” (Student N0.6).

For example, the supervisors attend educational programs on scientific writing and thesis evaluation as well as ethics in research and apply them in team work. Gradually, their competency can enable them to function as a good supervisor for their students. At this stage, the supervisor develops so that they can respond due to discovery and intuition. These responses replace their dubious and unskilled reactions. The supervisor now reflects various stages of supervision and guidance. They take action, and in fact, a part of their reactions are achieved through observation and recognition. In this stage, they not only recognize what should be done but also distinguish how to achieve it with more precise discretion. A competent person does the appropriate task in the most appropriate time using the right platform.

The time period required for training or acquiring expertise varies from one person to another. Some individuals become experts very soon, whilst it takes others longer.. As one of the professors said:

“…In the beginning, I was too concerned with my responsibility as a thesis supervisor and was not sure what I should do. However, after ten years of experience, I have gained a sense of awareness which makes supervision easier for me. Of course, up to date knowledge and skill as to managing a thesis are always necessary. It took me about 12 years to reach where I am today. Furthermore, an individual who is expert at present, will not be so in two years, so I want to say that the expertise in thesis supervision in a continuum, which depends on the supervisor’s reflections on work and activity …” (Faculty member N0.15).

The continuous path of expertise in supervision can be affected by various factors. This has resulted in a range of expertise and performance in supervisors. This range and continuum is a theme that most of our participants agreed with. One of the managers revealed:

“…There is surely a continuum of expertise. We cannot deny the expert supervisors; however, the existence of those with poor supervising skills must also be acknowledged (in thesis supervision). There are those on whose ethics, honesty, and knowledge we can rely on. On the other hand, there are a few who are not as trustworthy as needed.” (Manager N0.1).

The core variable: interactive accountability

As shown in Fig. 1 , through this survey, we found that the core variable in thesis supervision process is the interactive accountability shaped by interactions of supervisors and students in an academic setting, so to enhance the accountability, each group must take responsibility and do his or her job. In this regard, one of the managers claimed:

“…When supervisors find themselves responsible, and the university officials recognize this responsibility, the supervisors are motivated to seek expertise and try to enhance their competencies and acquire learning strategies because of being accountable…” (Manager N0.2)

This means that teachers must be responsive to the needs of students, university and community. Accountability is a mutual interaction between the students and their supervisor, in other words, if the student is responsive to his duties, he creates motivation in his supervisor. One of the participants commented;

“…I've always tried to be a competent thesis supervisor, so that I have the ability to meet the needs of the community and university as well as students. I say to myself when I accept the supervision of a thesis, I should be well accountable for its results…” (Faculty member N0.32)

This study aimed at exploring the processes of expertise among thesis supervisors based on the experience of faculty members, students, and managers of Iranian universities of medical sciences. The section concludes with an explanation of how these themes are a cohesive relationship, which enables the expertise development of supervisors. It seems that the core variable in the expertise process is the concept of interactive accountability and efforts to acquire the capacity to respond to the students and academic needs. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. The importance of accountability and various types of ability in thesis supervision has also been emphasized by other studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. It was also mentioned as the major feature of the supervisor in other studies [ 26 , 27 ].

In this study, “accountability” emerged as the behavioral pattern through which the supervisors resolved their main concern of being an expert in being responsive to academic and students’ needs. Supervision training is complex since academic choices in the real world can depend on supervisor characteristics. The results of this study revealed that in the initial phase of supervision, observation, evaluation, and reflection in action and maturation stage in the secondary phase were the major themes that emerged. This result compared with Bandura’s social learning and self-efficacy theory was significant in similarity and difference. Bandura believes that achieving self-efficacy is one of the most important contributors to competence. In his model, he suggested four sources of self-efficacy, including previous accomplishments, vicarious experiences such as having a role model, verbal persuasion such as coaching and evaluative feedback, and emotional arousal [ 28 , 29 ]. Likewise, in this study, we found that the emotional arousals such as personal interest in cooperative learning, peer competition, meeting the needs of students, self-awareness and the need for upgrading are the significant factors for the faculties’ expertise. Also, our participants found that the utilization of previous experiences is the most effective method of achieving personal competence. However, this study indicates conditional expertise, which means if an expert’s information is not up to date and they do not make any effort in this regard, being an expert and having expertise is not a permanent condition.

This study also revealed that self-effort, workshops, and role models, as part of a hidden curriculum, are influential methods of teacher empowerment which agrees with the results of some studies such as those of Britzman et al. and Patel et al. Patel et al. have also suggested the importance of role modeling; they believe that modeling and observing other faculty members behavior is an effective tool for promoting and strengthening the sense of efficacy in learners [ 30 , 31 ].

Based on our study results, among the learning methods used in Iran, the collaborative education and problem-based learning is the widely accepted method which is preferred by most faculties. Therefore, cooperative and collaborative learning strategies can be used in educating the faculty members towards expertise in supervision, as revealed in other studies [ 32 , 33 ].

Lack of time is reported by supervisors to be one of the most common barriers in trying to become an expert and carry out respectable worthy supervision, and taking one’s time is acknowledged as a motivating factor for putting in more effort in thesis supervision [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

The effect of contextual factors is studied in several surveys [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Gillet et al. state that contextual and organizational factors play a key role in the competence of teachers in research supervision [ 36 ]. This study also showed that faculty expertise in thesis supervision was significantly affected by the impact of contextual interventional factors such as sudden changes, structural shortcomings, and educational environment. Based on our and other studies’ results, among the sudden changes, increased workload due to the increase in the student population has greatly affected expertise. Moreover, while an increase in the workload can lead to more experienced faculty members, it is very time-consuming and, therefore, reduces the chance to obtain new information and skills in thesis supervision [ 33 , 37 ].

Similar to our study, other studies such as those of Al-Naggar et al. and Yousefi et al. have also found insufficient monitoring and lack of formative evaluations to be one of the main obstacles in the thesis supervision process. Studies have indicated that to improve the supervision process, careful planning and incentive rules must be applied [ 5 , 34 ]. Similarly, our participants mentioned that rules and regulations which have resulted in the positive effect of research on scholarship and promotion had truly motivated them. Like our study, other studies in Iran have also found that the amount of time allocated to learning is one of the influential factors affecting the faculty members’ expertise [ 13 , 38 ]. A malfunctioning relationship between the student and supervisors can affect both of them negatively; that is, it can compel the students to misbehave and also reduce the teachers’ motivation to develop better skills. This malfunction may be due to the lack of constructive interactions or paternalism leadership in research supervision [ 39 , 40 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this study provided a conceptual framework that can be used in policy making and studies of expertise development in research supervision. This framework is based on the perception and experience of the majority of those involved in the thesis process. It also provides teachers with an opportunity to compare and share their experiences.

This model has three fields of experience, which yields a comprehensive gradient of the factors used for the development and progress of thesis supervision quality. In other words, it is a rational structure that makes an effort to cover a comprehensible number of stages, of concept, achievement, and impact or consequence. In other words, this model is a combination of a great number of items that help to recognize the present and future processes of expertise in thesis supervision, and future challenges in this area which predict results and impacts of supervisor’s knowledge, attitude and research supervision. Table one offers the categories and clarifications [ 17 ].

This study is based on our overall model of expertise attainment. This model reveals that specific personal efforts such as observation of prior knowledge, evaluation or self-assessments alongside the university contextual dynamics help to figure out how supervisors select their approaches and engagements, and respond carefully to their task, which in turn impacts the supervisors’ level of expertise and, finally, outcomes such as work and perseverance, which then help them to become an expert. Similar to the social learning theory of Bandura, this model also states that there is a mutual relationship between different parts that can mutually affect one another. For instance, faculty members have shown in various studies how one’s previous academic success and failure can affect the future levels of involvement and motivation. Based on the study aims, we focused on only three of the components of the model: observation, evaluation, and self-efficacy; in terms of motivational processes, we focused on four motivational components. The first is self-efficacy, defined as students’ judgments of supervisor abilities to carry out a task, and their beliefs about their ability to do so show the highest levels of academic achievement and also engagement in academic behaviors promoting learning.

Through the use of this grounded theory, we can begin to understand the supervisors’ challenges and why it may be difficult to become an expert in research supervision in practice. The junior supervisors curiously observe and evaluate their environment by reflection and in action and do their best to attain knowledge and skills in the supervision of the theses, so that they can reach maturation. They are mainly supported by prior knowledge of the research supervision, which they had acquired when they were students. The concept of “interactive accountability” refers to the fact that if the supervisor is responsive to the students’ needs, they can be an expert in supervision. If they cannot overcome the barriers and shortcomings such as lack of time, they will not attain expertise in thesis supervision.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This grounded theory study describes the main dimensions of expertise in research supervision from straight reports of a large qualitative sample ( n  = 84) which consists of thesis supervisors, from all Iranian universities in three different data collection phases. Like other qualitative research, the results of this study cannot be generalized; therefore, it is recommended that the researchers conduct further qualitative research in other contexts to support these findings.

Despite the above limitations, we believe that this model can be useful for supervisors in the thesis supervision area, not only in analyzing the supervisors’ experience of supervision and being an expert but also in recognizing the areas of intervention or development of teacher training.

Implications of the study

The findings of the present study will help administrators to choose the supervisor with definite criteria in medical sciences institutes and facilitate the expertise in the supervision process through elimination of the shortcomings and improvement of the educational climate. The supervisor’s interest, talent, and capabilities should be assessed at the beginning of their employment as academic staff. Supervisors should attend educational workshops for updating their knowledge about supervision. It is recommended that collaborative strategies and methods should be used, so that we can contribute to the process of becoming an expert. The assessment of supervisors’ functioning in supervising and provision of feedback can contribute to the process of expertise. Feedback received from students about their supervisors will improve the supervisor’s further expertise and capabilities. For future studies survey on the impact of successful models in thesis supervision, disclosure analysis studies about student and supervisor are recommended.

In this study, we aimed to find out how thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision. The results of our study indicated that thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision in two stages of engagement and maturation. The emotional need to be responsive towards peers and students is the main motivation for the acquisition of competency at observation and evaluation phase of engagement. Through the evaluation and observation phase, the supervisors reach cognitive competence, such as research skills. Also, in the maturation phases, they reach meta-competence in research supervision such as problem-solving and resolving dilemmas by reflection in and when exposed to dilemmas. Meanwhile, the effects of supervision climate include shortcomings and role ambiguities which should be taken into account. According to this model, when supervisors are exposed to such problems, they apply multiple strategies, such as self-directed and collaborative learning; and learning by trial and error and from the role models. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. This study indicated that interactive accountability, as the core variable, can be guaranteed in thesis supervisors by making the role clear, creating a supportive context, and improving the academic competencies of staff in an ongoing fashion. Therefore, this can promote constructive expertise in supervisors and foster a deeper understanding of the supervisor’s expertise in thesis supervision.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets produced and analyzed during the present study are not publicly accessible due to participant confidentiality, but are obtainable from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Harwood N, Petrić B. Adaptive master’s dissertation supervision: a longitudinal case study. Teach High Educ. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541881 .

Hal de Kleijn RA, Meijer PC, Brekelmans M, Pilot A. Adaptive research supervision: exploring expert thesis supervisors’ practical knowledge. High Educ Res Dev. 2015;34(1):117–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(2):135–50.

Light, G, Cox R, Calkins S. Learning and teaching in higher education: the reflective professional. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman; 2009.

Youseffi A, Bazrafkan L, Yamani N. A qualitative inquiry into the challenges and complexities of research supervision: viewpoints of postgraduate students and faculty members. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2015;3(3):91.

Google Scholar  

Lee AM. Developing effective supervisors: concepts of research supervision. South Afr J High Educ. 2007;21(4):680–93.

Hall-Ellis SD, Grealy DS. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition: a career development framework for succession planning and management in academic libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2013;74(6):587–603.

Wisker G. The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.

Vereijken MW, van der Rijst RM, van Driel JH, Dekker FW. Novice supervisors’ practices and dilemmatic space in supervision of student research projects. Teach High Educ. 2018;23(4):522–42.

Haghdoost AA, Ghazi M, Rafiee Z, Afshari M. The trend of governmental support from post-graduated Iranian students in medical fields to study abroad. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(Suppl 1):141–6.

Malekzadeh R, Mokri A, & , Azarmina P. Medical science and research in Iran. Arch Iran Med (2001)4(1):27–39.

Samari A, Sorkhabi E, Omran S, Geraeenejed. Research and identify the factors contributing to the process of “academic development”. Iran Univ Stud Educ Plann. 2014;2(4):67–100.

Malekafzali H, Majdzadeh S, Fotouhi A, Tavakoli S. Applied research methodology in medical sciences. Tehran: Tehran University of Medical Sciences; 2004.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication; 2012.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 1998.

Jeon Y-H. The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18(3):249–56.

Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd edition. Routledge: Taylor and Francis group; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dilley P. Interviews and the philosophy of qualitative research. J High Educ. 2004;75(1):127–32.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 2008.

Cho JY, Lee E-H. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. Qual Rep. 2014;19(32):1–20.

Gioia DACK, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods. 2013;16(1):15–31.

Skeith L, Ridinger H, Srinivasan S, Givi B, Youssef N, Harris I. Exploring the thesis experience of master of health professions education graduates: a qualitative study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:113.

Yeatman A. Making supervision relationships accountable: graduate student logs. Aust Univ Rev. 1995;38(2):9–11.

Saaban A, Abu B, Jiar YK. Students and supervisors’ roles and responsibilities in doctoral research supervision. Adv Sci Lett. 2018;24(1):66–8.

Carter S, Laurs D, Chant L, Wolfgramm-Foliaki E. Indigenous knowledges and supervision: changing the lens. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2018;55(3):384–93.

Boston P. The three faces of supervision: Individual learning, group learning, and supervisor accountability. In C. Burck and G. Daniel (2010) (Eds.) Mirrors and Reflections Processes of Systemic Supervision. Routledge, Taylor, and Francis; 2010:27–48.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Manathunga C. The development of research supervision: “turning the light on a private space”. Int J Acad Dev. 2005;10(1):17–30.

Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J Manag. 2012;38(1):9–44.

Bandura A. On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. J Manag. 2015;41(4):1025–44.

Britzman DP. Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. -State University of New York Press; 2003.

Patel M, Reed D, Smith C, Arora V. Role-modeling cost-conscious care—a national evaluation of perceptions of faculty at teaching hospitals in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(9):1294–8.

Howard M, Steensma HK, Lyles M, Dhanaraj C. Learning to collaborate through collaboration: how allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms. Strateg Manag J. 2015:n/a.

Steinert Y. Faculty development: core concepts and principles. Steinert Y, editor. Faculty development in the health professions. Innovation and change in professional education. 11: Springer Netherlands; 2014. 3–25.

Al-Naggar R, et al. Doctorate international students’ satisfaction and stress on academic supervision in a Malaysian University: a qualitative approach. Educ Res. 2012;3(3):264–9.

Gillet N, Gagné M, Sauvagère S, Fouquereau E. The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2012;22(4):450–60.

Harden RM. AMEE guide no. 14: outcome-based education: part 1-an introduction to outcome-based education. Med Teach. 1999;21(1):7–14.

Bazrafkan L, Shokrpour N, Yousefi A, Yamani N. Management of stress and anxiety among phd students during thesis writing: a qualitative study. Health Care Manag. 2016;35(3):231–40.

Ghadirian L, Sayarifard A, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F, Yunesian M. Challenges for better thesis supervision. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:32.

Vehviläinen S, Löfström E. ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Stud High Educ. 2016;41(3):508–24.

Grossman ES. ‘My supervisor is so busy...’ informal spaces for postgraduate learning in the health sciences. South Afr J High Educ. 2016;30(2):94–109.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to thank all research participants of Medical Sciences Universities (faculty, student, and managers) who contributed to the study. The authors would also like to thank the Education Development Center of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for cooperation in this study and special thanks to Professor Shokrpoour for her editing.

The present article was extracted from the thesis written by Leila Bazrafkan. The design and implementation of the project was financially supported by Esfahan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 92–6746).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Leila Bazrafkan & Mitra Amini

Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Alireza Yousefy & Nikoo Yamani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LB developed the study design, conducted the interviews and analysis, ensured trustworthiness, and drafted the manuscript. AY, as the supervisor participated in the study design, supervised the codes and data analysis process, and revised the manuscripts. NY as research advisor participated in the study and provided guidance during the study and MA revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

LB is an assistant professor of medical education in Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

AY is Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan

MA is Professor of Medical Education in the Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

NY Associate Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikoo Yamani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were justified about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

Consent for publication

Participants gave printed informed consent for the use of passages for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bazrafkan, L., Yousefy, A., Amini, M. et al. The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ 19 , 320 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2019

Accepted : 29 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Medical sciences faculty
• Grounded theory
• Thesis supervision

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Stack Exchange Network

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

Q&A for work

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

How should I deal with challenging master thesis students as a supervisor?

I'm a PhD student in my first year, co-supervising master students with a postdoc, and listed as the first supervisor. This is my first experience supervising a thesis. My previous experiences with students were mainly tutoring or conducting lab experiments with students.

The issues:

The students are not honest; they have experience with some tools, and it is in their curriculum, but when I asked them about the tools, they stated to me clearly that they don't have experience with it. In another meeting with the co-supervisor, they admitted the opposite; however, minimum experience.

I have sent many tasks since the beginning stating clearly why these tasks should be done now because they will need it in the future to do so and so. The tasks were ignored.

The student neither thinks actively nor searches for the information, expecting everything to be spoon-fed. I stated many times that this is not how master theses work.

I thought maybe the topic was new to them, so I prepared a list of questions, including keywords with the required material to search within and learn. It was not taken seriously.

Also, they don't consider our time and that we have other responsibilities and expect an answer within a few minutes.

Since time is running out for them, they are playing some game (I don't know the proper term for that) like:

You are my mentor, and the time is running; if I didn't help them immediately, they would spend the time doing something wrong, which would be my fault.

Whenever I ask a question from the questions list I sent earlier; supposedly they did a literature review, and the answers are entirely wrong. Their excuse is the topic is new, and there is not enough literature, which is a lie.

They reached the stage where they complained to me that the server was down (where they should get the data), which is a national server and not my issue.

I don't know what to do anymore; I tried positive reinforcement, specific tasks, and specific tasks with deadlines, but all did not work. I don't want to be an "unsupportive supervisor"; I'm afraid I have already lost interest in the topic and am not interested in getting a good master thesis out of it.

The questions might be: How should I proceed, and how can I proceed objectively?

A good master thesis in my opinion is that the students understand the problem, review the relevant literature, approach the issue, develop a workflow to solve it, try that, and write all that in in their thesis.

The students received their topic/title, recommendation regarding literature, the tools that should be used in the thesis at the beginning. After, two or three consecutive meetings, it was clear that they need to be guided a little bit. That is why I or we started guiding them.

• supervision

• 16 Have you discussed this with your post-doc and professor? If so, what did they say? Also: who decides whether these students pass or fail? I assume a professor -- but if you are "first supervisor," maybe this is your decision? –  cag51 ♦ Commented Jun 9, 2022 at 18:56
• 2 Also: I don't understand your first bullet. What does "in their colloquium" mean? My read is that they are trying to avoid overstating their level of knowledge, which is minimal. Or? –  cag51 ♦ Commented Jun 9, 2022 at 19:08
• 3 If you were my supervisor, I would kindly ask you to let me be freer. You are supposed to only guide them, not to tell them what do you. Note that, there is a difference between giving them suggestions and giving tasks. "[...] getting a good master thesis out of it.". That is not job. That won't affect your career. That is not your thesis. If you are interested in the subject, work on it yourself or give the project to someone else. –  Our Commented Jun 9, 2022 at 19:11
• 2 Please be patient; we're really just trying to understand the situation so that we can offer helpful advice. If I understand correctly, it sounds like you discussed this situation with your professor and they told you to offer additional "handholding." Is that correct? What I'm really trying to understand is: if you tell the students "do X or you or will fail," and they don't do X, will they indeed fail? Or will your professor swoop in and offer some alternative? –  cag51 ♦ Commented Jun 9, 2022 at 20:59
• 1 How many such students? (Suggest the question be edited with that info.) –  Daniel R. Collins Commented Jun 9, 2022 at 21:16

You are trying to be helpful, but there is such a thing as too much handholding. The more helpful you are, the more likely students are to exploit this and to become a help vampire .

You do not owe your students any success. You owe them a fair chance at succeeding. But this chance is theirs to take. The thesis is solely their responsibility, especially since the purpose of a masters thesis also is to demonstrate the ability of doing independent academic work. By definition , success or failure of the thesis isn't your fault. Some students will throw their chance away, regardless of how much you help them.

Things that might help in the future include clearer boundaries, and focusing your assistance more on methodological aspects.

Your student currently expects responses within minutes. Matters are rarely so urgent that they need responses the same day.

When supervising a thesis, it might be best to minimize such informal messages except for truly urgent issues, and instead have regular meetings for which the student can prepare questions. Depending on the kind of work, a cadence like one meeting every two weeks might work well. Then, you can defer any small issues that come up: “let's discuss this at our next meeting”.

You mentioned that you “sent many tasks”, provided material, and tried to set deadlines.

This is fine when working with an intern or research assistant, but not for a student who is supposed to independently write a thesis. Firstly, because you're doing their work for them. Secondly, because it's their thesis and they should use whatever working style they believe works for them.

Instead, it might be best to focus your assistance on methodological aspects, so that the student knows how to write a good thesis. For example, many students need an explanation about how to find useful literature, how to structure a thesis, and maybe where to find techniques that weren't covered during lectures. A master thesis is often the longest independent project done by the student, so sharing experience with time management can also help.

But mostly, a Socratic approach is useful, where you ask the students about their plans for the thesis. What are their goals until the next meeting? Do they feel they are on schedule, if not how can they adapt their plans? Have they considered the connection with $related_topic? How to they intend to mitigate a certain risk you are concerned about? What challenges are they currently facing, and how do they intend to solve them? You can suggest things, but it will be the student's decision what they do with that suggestion.

Added benefit: if you set out a plan and they fail, they will blame you, and perhaps rightly so. If they set out a plan and they fail despite knowing your concerns, that's clearly on them.

Since the thesis in question is already close to its end, it will be difficult to switch to clearer boundaries and to more passive support. But if at least two weeks or so are left, not impossible, if you are willing to put your foot down. For example, consider an email along the following lines:

It is great that you have these questions, but this is your thesis and working through such challenges is part of it. I don't have the time to discuss your progress right now, but I can offer a meeting $in_4_business_days. Please continue work on your thesis in the meanwhile, and we can discuss remaining issues then.

Is this impolite? Maybe, but so is bombarding you with endless requests for help.

What I find rather odd in all of this is that it's the first thesis you supervise, and already as the main supervisor. Supervision is a skill that can be learnt, but ideally by shadowing another supervisor for one or two theses. I'm still in that “apprenticeship” phase. So I think it's completely unsurprising that you're running into these kinds of problems, and I also ran into similar problems with the first students that I mentored. The good news for you is that you can learn from this experience, and can be a much better supervisor for the next student. The learning experience goes both ways.

• 1 I appreciate your answer! And I will keep your advices always in my mind :-) –  Jupiter Commented Jun 9, 2022 at 20:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged thesis masters supervision ..

• Featured on Meta
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites

Hot Network Questions

• Does a Debt Exist for A Parking Charge Notice
• Who was the French detective mentioned in Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt"?
• Syntactically, who does Jesus refer to as 'to you' and 'those outside' in Mark 4:11?
• Looking for the name of a possibly fictional science fiction TV show
• How long should a wooden construct burn (and continue to take damage) until it burns out (and stops doing damage)
• How cheap would rocket fuel have to be to make Mars colonization feasible (according to Musk)?
• What is the least number of colours Peter could use to color the 3x3 square?
• Movie / episode where a spaceplane is stuck in orbit
• What is the working justification of this circuit?
• Can someone confirm this observed bug for `bc`? `scale=0` has no effect!
• Unstable plans when two first index columns have NULL values in all rows
• Text processing: Filter & re-publish HTML table
• When a mass crosses a black hole event horizon does the horizon radius get larger closer to the mass or does it increase equally everywhere?
• I am trying to update but its giving error and I am not getting whats's the issue
• Wrong explanation for why "electron can't exist in the nucleus"?
• How much could gravity increase before a military tank is crushed
• Analog story - US provides food machines to other nations, with hidden feature
• How to fold or expand the wingtips on Boeing 777?
• Is there any benefit to declaring an index that contains a primary key as unique?
• Does this policy mean that my work has flawed password storage?
• Why does each leg of my 240V outlet measure 125V to ground, but 217V across the hot wires?
• Why do "modern" languages not provide argv and exit code in main?
• How solid is the claim that Alfred Nobel founded the Nobel Prize specifically because of his invention of dynamite?
• How much technological progress could a group of modern people make in a century?

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

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

The lessons I learnt supervising master’s students for the first time

• Emilio Dorigatti 0

Emilio Dorigatti is a PhD student in data science and bioinformatics at the Munich School for Data Science in Germany, working on new ways to design vaccines for cancer.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

I started my PhD wanting to improve not only my scientific abilities, but also ‘soft skills’ such as communication, mentoring and project management. To this end, I joined as many social academic activities as I could find, including journal clubs, seminars, teaching assistance, hackathons, presentations and collaborations.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02028-1

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

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Research management

How a struggling biotech company became a university ‘spin-in’

Career Q&A 10 SEP 24

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint

Career Feature 04 SEP 24

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

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

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

Chief Operating Officer

Salary: £425,000 per annumContract: PermanentClosing date: Sunday 22nd September Founded in 1936, Wellcome is a politically and financially independen

England, London

WellcomeTrust

Executive Director, Discovery

Salary: £400,000 per annumContract: PermanentClosing date: Sunday 22nd September Founded in 1936, Wellcome is a politically and financially independe

London, England

Executive Director, Solutions

Salary: £400,000 per annumContract: PermanentClosing date: Sunday 22nd September Founded in 1936, Wellcome is a politically and financially independen

Al Medical Engineering at School of Biomedical Engineering

Tsinghua BME offers faculty positions in the emerging research direction of AI Medical Engineering

Beijing, China

Tsinghua University

Assistant Professor in Forest Genetics

Assistant Professor position in Forest Genetics with focus on genetic biodiversity in relation to forestry at Umeå Plant Science Centre

Umeå (Kommun), Västerbotten (SE)

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)

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

Quick links

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

• Suchformular öffnen Suchformular schließen
• Personensuche
• Suche Suche --> Webseiten Personensuche Suche starten

For more details, please choose the potentially supervising professor:

Prof. dörner, prof. ehmke, prof. fabel, prof. hartl, prof. rauner, ass.-prof. tilk, prof. vetschera, prof. windsperger, special focus: european dimension of international business.

• Guidelines of the School of Business and Economics

When considering a research question for your thesis topic

The research proposal.

Find more details on topics, application and supervision here.

For a fair and transparent allocation of thesis supervision spots Prof. Fabel has the following rules for deciding which theses to supervise: There are exactly 10 thesis supervision spots available at any point in time. These spots will be allocated on 1 fixed date (deadline for handing in the proposals: 04.11.2024 in the winter semester; allocation follows a couple of days after the deadlines).

It is strongly recommended that students discuss their topic project idea in an office hour before entering into the final registration procedure! You are asked, to register not last minute for the office hour! Please also indicate your taken courses and your grades.

To apply for a free spot students have to submit a 3-5 page thesis proposal. The number of available supervision slots determines the maximum number of students that can be accepted for supervision from within the submitted thesis proposals.

The thesis proposal needs to elaborate on the following points

•  the precise research question addressed by the thesis
•  methods
•  applicants prior knowledge regarding the research question
•  a preliminary list of references
•  (if applicable) information about possible access to data, business contacts, etc…
•  risks that could lead to the failure of the project, and how those will be dealt with
•  list of successfully completed courses in the Major/Minor
•  what draws you to writing your thesis in our area of research

Proposals (.pdf or doc files) should be submitted by the dates indicated above :

Apply for thesis supervision here

Accepted proposals will be registered at the SSC with an acceptance of supervision form (Anmeldung der Masterarbeit  - Thema und Betreuung).

In preparation for a successful proposal submission and thesis writing process we highly encourage candidates to take at least one of the following two courses before applying for thesis supervision:

• KU Data Analysis on Organization and Personnel (MA) (if thesis necessitates work with large data sets)
• KU Empirical Methods in Decision Sciences (MA) (if thesis is to include experimental methodology)

Please be aware that Prof. Fabel is already supervising a considerable number of theses and will thus only be able to take on very few new supervisions. Therefore we recommend sending your proposal to all possible supervisors interested in the research area of your proposal. For a list please visit the SSC homepage .

For information on how to apply for supervision with Prof. Rauner please visit the Public and Non-profit Management page here . Please be aware that for supervision of topics on Public & Non-profit Management students are expected to attend the corresponding lectures!

Due to his imminent retirement Prof. Vetschera is not taking on new supervisions.

Please note

That prof. vetschera will retire on sept. 30, 2024, and supervision of master theses cannot be guaranteed beyond that date., students starting their thesis work during the summer term 2024 should therefore plan to complete their work by end of 2024 at the latest..

GENERAL REQUIREMENT Before you apply for a topic, you have to complete at least one of the following courses:

• Theory of the international Firm
• Global Strategy
• International Market Entry

Rules for Scientific Writing Since you are in the process of submitting the final version of the master thesis, please remember to  submit a final version that consistently applies the formal rules of writing a research paper. Very often we receive a final study that has not consistently applied the rules of writing a research paper. Here are two references for preparing the thesis:

• Karmasin, M., R. Rainer, Die Gestaltung wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten, , 2015, UTB Facultas
• Skern, T., Writing Scientific English, 2015, UTB Facultas

FURTHER INFORMATION on Prof. Windsperger's personal homepage .

We offer 1-2 supervision spots each semester for the students who want to write a thesis within the framework of the Jean Monnet Project “ International Business – Strategies for Integrated Europe ”. To apply please state in your proposal that you want to write your thesis within the Jean Monnet Project and send it (.pdf or .doc file) to [email protected]. If your proposal is accepted, the main supervisor will be assigned depending on the capacity and specific focus within the Organization, Personnel and International Management group. Dr. Oksana Galak would act as a co-supervisor on the theses. Successful completion of the course “ European Dimension of International Business ” prior to application is strongly recommended.

 Guidelines of the School of Business and Economics

• DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.556717
• Corpus ID: 143593178

Master's thesis supervision: relations between perceptions of the supervisor–student relationship, final grade, perceived supervisor contribution to learning and student satisfaction

• Renske A. M. de Kleijn , M. Mainhard , +2 authors Mieke Brekelmans
• Published 1 December 2012
• Education, Psychology
• Studies in Higher Education

97 Citations

The relation between feedback perceptions and the supervisor–student relationship in master's thesis projects, curricular goals and personal goals in master's thesis projects: dutch student-supervisor dyads, student-perceived supervisor motivation and grade pressure as predictors of german psychology students’ thesis motivation, the impacts of supervisor – phd student relationships on phd students’ satisfaction: a case study of vietnamese universities, master's students' perceptions of final year project supervision, determinants of phd student satisfaction: the roles of supervisor, department, and peer qualities, the relationship between interpersonal approaches of thesis supervisors and graduate student satisfaction, master’s thesis projects: student perceptions of supervisor feedback, relationship matters: duo-narrating a graduate student/supervisor journey, impact of student-supervisor relationship on postgraduate students’ subjective well-being: a study based on longitudinal data in china, 44 references, style and quality in research supervision: the supervisor dependency factor, a model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship, supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: ph.d. students’ progress and outcomes, mastering the dissertation: lecturers’ representations of the purposes and processes of master’s level dissertation supervision, how are doctoral students supervised concepts of doctoral research supervision, managing criticism in ph.d. supervision: a qualitative case study, doctoral supervision of colleagues: peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence, thesis supervision in the social sciences: managed or negotiated, two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class, multivoiced supervision of master’s students: a case study of alternative supervision practices in higher education, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Sample emails to your thesis supervisor

A good thesis requires good communication between you and your thesis supervisor. This includes emails! Yet, even a simple email can lead to stress and overthinking. If you struggle to communicate with your thesis supervisor via email, have a look at six sample emails for inspiration.

General tips for emailing your thesis supervisor

Every relationship between student and thesis supervisor is unique. And everyone has a unique (email) writing style.

Sample email to thesis supervisor inquiring about potential supervision

The first email to a potential thesis supervisor tends to be very formal. If you have never met the potential thesis supervisor in person before, make sure to check out tips on how to cold-email professors. In the following sample email, however, we assume that the student and the potential thesis supervisor met before.

Sample email to thesis supervisor setting up a meeting

Sample email to thesis supervisor sharing post-meeting action points

To get the most out of thesis supervision meetings , it is highly recommended that the student takes notes during the meeting. Based on these notes, the student then summarises the key takeaways from the meeting, or action points, so to speak. These action points will guide the student’s work until the next meeting, and provide a written record of agreements.

Sample email to thesis supervisor asking for feedback

Sample email to thesis supervisor asking for support

Sample email to thesis supervisor when not meeting a deadline.

And lastly, there are the unfortunate occasions where you made agreements with your thesis supervisor, which you cannot meet. Pulling an all-nighter is generally a bad idea, as sleep is crucial for efficient thesis writing . It might be smarter, to be honest, and open about it and to inform your thesis advisor in advance. In the following sample email, the student informs the supervisor that he cannot meet the agreed deadline.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, asking for a recommendation letter from a phd supervisor, how many conferences postgrads should attend, related articles, minimalist writing for a better thesis, 75 linking words for academic writing (+examples), how to write a unique thesis acknowledgement (+ faqs), how to write a fantastic thesis introduction (+15 examples).

• All categories

Master & PhD Thesis Supervision

CWTS staff members regularly supervise PhD theses and act as external Ma-thesis advisors. We offer a range of topics for students from several disciplines interested in science studies, research evaluation, bibliometrics, altmetrics, higher education studies, innovation studies, organizational sociology, and science policy.

Master Thesis Assignments

Master students develop a clear problem statement, explore relevant theoretical approaches, develop a research strategy, and collect and analyze data under supervision of CWTS staff. Topics should be closely related to the research conducted by the CWTS Focal Areas . All students are given the opportunity to participate in our research seminars.

PhD Thesis Supervision

The Netherlands is one of the few countries where PhD students are employees of the university. There are several ways to obtain a PhD:

• As an employee of Leiden University. If we have job vacancies we advertise them via the link below. If we do not have vacancies, candidates may look for funding in their own institute or country, or apply for a private scholarship.
• On a scholarship - arranged by candidates themselves - from a foreign government, an international organisation or a Dutch fund for example;
• As an external PhD candidate. Candidates work on their thesis in their own time, and the projects are self-financed or paid for by another employer. The thesis is written under the (co-) supervision of our senior staff.

If you have a scholarship or want to pursue a PhD as an external candidate, you can contact us for more information on opportunities, conditions and entry requirements.

In most cases PhD supervision will take place within the  Netherlands Graduate School of Science, Technology and Modern Culture .

If you have further questions please contact  [email protected] .

• Masters Thesis and Supervisor

[Part of the Policies of the CHD, August 2019]

Master’s Thesis

A candidate for a terminal Master's degree, with the prior approval of a faculty supervisor and of the CHD, may undertake an extended reading and research project resulting in what amounts to a Master's thesis.  The thesis is optional for the S.M. degree and required for the M.E. degree.  In connection with this project, an S.M. candidate may take no more than two SEAS letter-graded reading and research courses (299r), no more than one in any given semester.  M.E. candidates may take up to one 299r course as part of the eight letter-graded courses and are required to take eight 300-level reading and research courses. 

Second Reader

When a thesis project is pursued in connection with a terminal Master’s degree, the thesis supervisor, in consultation with the student, shall nominate an outside reader who is a member of the SEAS faculty for approval by the CHD by course-enrollment day of their second semester in the case of SM students, or by course-enrollment day of their third semester for M.E. students.  Ordinarily, both the supervisor and reader must be members of the SEAS faculty; exceptions must be approved by the CHD.

An initial draft of the thesis must be transmitted to the supervisor before Spring Recess of the student’s final semester (or Thanksgiving Recess if the student’s final semester is the fall). The final draft of the thesis, incorporating any revisions given on prior drafts by the thesis supervisor and outside reader, must be transmitted to the thesis supervisor and outside reader by the first day of Reading Period, and the student should simultaneously submit a one- or two-page abstract to the Office of Academic Programs. The thesis supervisor and outside reader should each submit to the Office of Academic Programs by the last day of Reading Period a letter giving their evaluation of the thesis.

It is expected that such a thesis will represent a more substantial contribution than is customary for an undergraduate senior thesis, but less so than a doctoral dissertation. The thesis will follow a similar format to a Ph.D. dissertation, and satisfy similar criteria. The main difference is in the volume of original work expected of a master’s thesis, which might have the content of roughly 25% of original research as in the Ph.D. dissertation. No part of a master’s thesis may be included in a subsequent Ph.D. dissertation. The student should note that the following four points should be covered in a master’s thesis: introduction, stating the question being asked, or hypothesis being tested, or design challenge being addressed; literature review, summarizing pertinent prior work; original research or design; and conclusions, stating what was learned.

The thesis abstract and evaluations will be made part of the student's permanent record. When an S.M. or M.E. program plan approved by the CHD provides for or requires the preparation of a thesis, awarding of the degree will not be recommended until the abstract and satisfactory evaluations have been received by the Office of Academic Programs.   Unsatisfactory evaluations of the thesis will be reflected as unsatisfactory grades given by the supervisor in the student’s 300-level and/or 299r courses and will preclude the awarding of the M.E. degree; M.E. students who otherwise have met the requirements for the S.M. may apply for that degree to be conferred on the next degree date.

M.E. students who are in-between supervisors

M.E. students who do not remain with their initial supervisor are expected to secure a new supervisor by the end of the second semester.  Students who cannot identify a new supervisor by that time will be expected to withdraw from the program based on a lack of progress to degree, receiving the S.M. if they have met the requirements for that degree.  Such students may petition to remain for a third semester in order to satisfy the S.M. requirements.

The new supervisor will normally be a member of the SEAS faculty.  Permission for a student to have a non-SEAS supervisor may be given by the Director of Graduate Studies; such students must also have a SEAS faculty member as co-advisor.

In Academic Programs

• Non-Resident and Part-Time Study
• CHD Meeting Schedule
• PhD Overview and Timeline
• PhD Course Requirements
• PhD Program Plans
• Teaching: G2 year
• Qualifying Exam: by end of G2 year
• Research Advisors, Committees, and Meetings
• Dissertation and Final Oral Exam
• SM and ME Course Requirements
• SM and ME Program Plans
• SM degree en route to the PhD
• Graduate Student Forms
• Teaching Fellows
• External Fellowships List
• COVID-19 Graduate Program Changes (archived)

Milestones in master's and doctoral programs

The following list of milestones is designed as a tool to support the  Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision .

Department and faculty dependent milestones

• Academic Integrity Module
• Obtain training necessary for research (e.g. Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS))
• Academic Integrity workshop/milestone  
• Establish research question or define problem to be explored and methods to be used
• Select Advisory Committee
• Complete research proposal or research plan
• Complete coursework
• Data collection (can include field work) and research
• Comprehensive exam(s) (PhD only, complete by term 7.0)
• Reassess research plan and re-evaluate as necessary/required, discuss with supervisor and advisory committee
• Progress with research and begin to write thesis (start early, if possible)
• Write and defend thesis