when your phd supervisor doesn't support you

How to Cope with a Problematic PhD Supervisor

• by James Hayton, PhD
• January 17th, 2022

Stay up to date

Why you (probably) shouldn’t do a phd, “i can’t contact my phd supervisor until i have something to show”.

“Is there any system that protects PhD candidates from having a problematic supervisor? For example, any ways to make complaints? Or would complaints not help but make the relationship worse?”

The simple answer is yes, usually there are ways to make formal complaints.

My view is that universities and supervisors have a responsibility to provide support, feedback and guidance to PhD students. There’s a trust that you place in them when you invest years of your life and possibly quite a lot of money in tuition fees, and they have a duty to provide adequate support in return.

If you’re not receiving that support, you’ve got to be assertive . You’ve got to speak up, and you’ve got to speak up early while there’s still time to find a potential solution rather than waiting until the last few months of your PhD when it might be too late.

If you don’t say anything because you’re afraid of their reaction, there will probably be much worse consequences later.

However, as you rightly point out, making a formal complaint to the university or to your department is likely to affect your relationship with your supervisor.

I think that it’s always best to try to resolve any issues directly with your supervisor, and formal complaints should really only be used as a last resort if you’ve made every reasonable attempt to sort things out, but the working relationship has completely broken down. At that point, it doesn’t really matter how they react because the relationship is already dead.

So how should you try to address problems in your relationship with your PhD supervisor?

The original question doesn’t specify what the problem is, so I’ll go through a few common issues and how you might be able to approach them.

Problem 1: A lack of contact

The first common problem is simply a lack of contact. This is especially common if you’re doing a PhD remotely and you’re entirely dependent on email for communication.

Sometimes this isn’t entirely the supervisor’s fault. Often I speak to students who say they emailed the supervisor three months ago but didn’t get a reply. They can then get stuck in a cycle of worry about whether the supervisor cares about the project or whether the work they sent was good enough.

But then when I ask if they’ve tried to follow up, often they say they’re afraid of appearing rude, or they don’t want to disturb their supervisor because they’re so busy and important.

But remember that academics struggle too. The day your email arrived, maybe they had 100 other emails in their inbox. Maybe they had a grant application deadline. Maybe they were about to reply and someone knocked on their door. And maybe they fully intended to get back to you and because they wanted to give you a considered reply they didn’t do it in the moment and then it slid further down their inbox.

Personally, I try to stay on top of my email, but sometimes things slip. It doesn’t mean anything that I haven’t replied, and It’s helpful to me if you follow up on a message I haven’t replied to.

So try not to project your fears onto your supervisor. Assume good intentions and just send a polite follow up.

If they consistently don’t reply, then yes, that’s a problem. What I would do is say that you would really value their input and whether it would be possible to have more frequent contact, whether there’s something you can do to make that easier… and if there’s still no response or if they say no or if they get angry, this is when you might consider trying to change supervisor.

Problem 2: Multiple supervisors & contradictory advice

You might have more than one supervisor. Maybe they aren’t communicating with each other or maybe they are giving you contradictory advice.

In this case it’s your responsibility to manage the communication, making sure that they are both copied into emails, and they each know what the other has said.

It’s also worth noting that, often, supervisors are giving you suggestions and it’s up to you to decide what to do with them. They will want you to have counter-suggestions, they will want you to have your own ideas and they will want you to make decisions.

So instead of seeing it as contradictory advice, maybe try to see it as a range of options that you can try, or even modify to come up with another option of your own

Then in your communication with both supervisors, you can say what you’re going to try first.

Problem 3: Harsh feedback

What if your supervisor keeps giving you overly harsh feedback ?

This can be difficult to take, especially if you’ve put a lot of work in and if you’re feeling a bit stressed. So there’s an emotional component that can sometimes affect the way you interpret feedback and it can make you feel demotivated and disengaged.

When you were an undergraduate and you submitted an essay you probably just received a grade and moved on. You weren’t expected to make any changes. But at PhD level, you’re learning to be a professional academic. And when professional academics submit a paper—unless they submit to a low quality journal that accepts anything—there will almost always be things they have to change in response to the reviewers comments.

That’s actually a good result, because a lot of the best journals completely reject the majority of submissions. So I can guarantee that your supervisor, no matter how good their publication record, will have had work rejected and they will have had harsh feedback. It’s not a personal judgement, It’s just part of the job and it’s necessary to improve your work and your writing.

What I’d suggest is really engaging with the feedback, possibly just one section at a time to make it a little bit easier, and making sure you really understand the points they’re making and asking them questions to clarify if necessary.

One of the biggest frustrations I hear from PhD supervisors is students not saying anything. Most supervisors would want you to ask questions, they would want you to tell them if there’s something you don’t understand and they would want you to discuss a point you disagree with.

So try to become an active participant in your feedback, rather than a passive recipient.

For more on this point, check out my video on dealing with harsh feedback .

What makes a good PhD supervisor?

share this with someone who needs it:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

PhD: An uncommon guide to research, writing & PhD life

By james hayton (2015).

PhD: an uncommon guide to research, writing & PhD life is your essential guide to the basic principles every PhD student needs to know.

Applicable to virtually any field of study, it covers everything from finding a research topic, getting to grips with the literature, planning and executing research and coping with the inevitable problems that arise, through to writing, submitting and successfully defending your thesis.

Useful links

About james hayton, phd, latest phd tips, phd coaching.

AI-free zone

All the text on this site (and every word of every video script) is written by me, personally, because I enjoy writing. I enjoy the challenges of thinking deeply and finding the right words to express my ideas. I do not advocate for the use of AI in academic research and writing, except for very limited use cases.

See: Why you shouldn't rely on AI for PhD research and writing

• Meet the Mentors
• Get Involved
• Get the T-Shirt
• Life Science Marketing
• Community Marketing
• Custom Marketing

Join Us Sign up for our feature-packed newsletter today to ensure you get the latest expert help and advice to level up your lab work.

• Genomics & Epigenetics
• DNA / RNA Manipulation and Analysis
• Protein Expression & Analysis
• PCR & Real-time PCR
• Flow Cytometry
• Microscopy & Imaging
• Cells and Model Organisms
• Analytical Chemistry and Chromatography Techniques
• Chemistry for Biologists
• Basic Lab Skills & Know-how
• Equipment Mastery & Hacks
• Managing the Scientific Literature
• Career Development and Networking
• Dealing with Fellow Scientists
• Getting Funded
• Lab Statistics & Math
• Organization & Productivity
• Personal Development
• PhD Survival
• Soft Skills & Tools
• Software & Online Tools
• Survive & Thrive
• Taming the Literature
• Writing, Publishing & Presenting

What To Do If Your Graduate Supervisor Is Not Supporting You

The relationship you have with your supervisor during the course of your PhD is a critical one. Like all other personal or professional relationships it can range from being harmonious to disastrous. Choosing a supervisor you think will work well with you in the first place is important, however it can be difficult to foresee…

Published April 7, 2014

I am a PhD qualified research professional with a strong background in Translational Medicine and Biomedical research. This has involved carrying out research into a variety of diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory lung disease, cancer and cardiovascular disease and drug allergy/hypersensitivity. I gained experience in laboratory and research management and now work in medical education regulation.

The relationship you have with your supervisor during the course of your PhD is a critical one. Like all other personal or professional relationships it can range from being harmonious to disastrous. Choosing a supervisor you think will work well with you in the first place is important, however it can be difficult to foresee any potential issues in the future.

Throughout your PhD you should expect adequate facilities and equipment, as well as emotional and intellectual support from your supervisor. Likewise, your supervisor can expect certain things from you such as academic competence, organizational skills, regular progress reporting and a level of independence and the capability to work under limited direction.

But what can you do when you feel like this is falling apart and your supervisor is not supporting you?

Maintain a relationship with your advisor

First off, make sure you try and develop a good relationship with your supervisor. Establish a clear idea of mutual expectations from each other.

Maintain good communication with your supervisor through regular meetings and work together to develop a structured yet flexible plan for your thesis. Make sure you are forthright about what you can handle, both experimentally and time-wise.  Be resourceful so you are not bugging your supervisor with every detail, but let him/her know if you are stumped or if you need more guidance.

Determine your supervisor’s style

If you feel like your supervisor isn’t supporting you, make sure it isn’t just a matter of not understanding your supervisor’s management style.  Some supervisors like to micro-manage and be made aware of every nuance in an experiment.  If you don’t give them enough information they may get frustrated.  Other supervisors are laid-back which might lead you to believe they are disinterested, when actually they are waiting for you to come to them.

Figure out your supervisor’s style and how to interact with them.  His/her management style may not be compatible with how you like to work – but you will be together for a number of years – so figure out how to make it work for both of you.

Determine the extent of your problem

Many students, if not all, will feel at some stage that they are not getting the support they need. What you need to determine is the impact and import of the situation.  Always take a step back and reflect on the situation from both viewpoints. If you think it is a temporary situation that will resolve itself with time, perhaps you just need to wait it out.  But if it is negatively affecting your progress or it is so bad that you don’t want to go to work anymore, then you might have to get other people involved.

Your supervisor has lost interest in your project (temporarily)

Sometimes it can feel like your supervisor is no longer interested in what you are doing.  Someone else in the lab might be obtaining exciting results and he/she is focused on that.  Or perhaps your supervisor is having trouble maintaining funding for your project.

It can be difficult drudging on day after day feeling like no one is interested in what you are doing.  You need to find yourself another cheerleader.  Perhaps a senior lab member has shown some interest in your project and you can turn to them.  Alternatively, talk to other people at your level about your work – sometimes just describing what you are doing to your peers can help bolster your enthusiasm.  If your work is still progressing, you can then rely on these people to keep your spirits up until your supervisor comes around.

Your project has forayed into an area in which your supervisor has no expertise

This is not an unusual problem in scientific research as research is increasingly multidisciplinary. While your supervisor may have provided you with a specific project outline in the beginning this will most likely evolve and even your supervisor may find themselves out of their depth. Show initiative and identify researchers that can be approached for advice. Try and work closely with your supervisor in this regard as he/she may wish to approach a potential collaborator or advisor initially.

Your relationship with your supervisor has degraded and it is affecting your project

If it has come to a point in your project where you and your supervisor are completely disagreeing on every aspect of your project, you may need to seek external help. Some students have a co-supervisor who can be a great mediator and source of advice.  Most graduate programs establish a committee that is responsible for checking in with graduate students on a yearly basis.  Don’t be afraid to approach these people for advice. Alternatively you can also approach the person responsible for post-graduate studies within your institute.

You think your supervisor is preventing you from graduating and treating you like a technician

I’ve heard this complaint from several grad students. Firstly, try and establish exactly what you think you need to do to complete your project. If you truly feel you are doing above and beyond, then seek advice. This is when it is time to go to your committee. Your committee can take an unbiased look at the work you have accomplished and help determine a goal for graduating.  With their advice in hand you can then negotiate a reasonable stopping point with your supervisor. Remember, many institutions have a limit on the length of a PhD  – this can work in your favor.

Keep in mind, earning your PhD should not be an easy task, but you should expect to have the proper support throughout.  Don’t be afraid to ask for the help you need.

Have you had negative experiences with your supervisor?

Share this article:

More 'PhD Survival' articles

Dealing with PhD Blues

As a dual-degree MD/PhD student I spent two years in the medical school doing classroom learning, now I’m in the lab trying to get a PhD, and then in a few years I’ll return for the last two years of medical school and work in the hospital. In this process, I’ve heard a lot about…

10 Do’s and Don’ts for PhD Students

My PhD is rapidly becoming a distant memory. Before nostalgia completely obscures my recollections of this chapter of my career, I thought I’d jot down some pointers for prospective and current PhD students. These are mainly based on things I wish I had done during my PhD, or mistakes I have seen others make. I…

10 Uses for a PhD Thesis

Earning a PhD is something to be proud of. It represents years of hard work and an original contribution to science. And yet, the main product of this labor is a very large, rather dull book that gathers dust on a bookshelf. You will never read it again, nor will your labmates or even your…

Top 10 Tips for Viva Success

Thesis defenses are supposed to be grueling, horrific affairs that you fear for weeks beforehand, right? What if there was a way to get through your thesis without tears, torture, and perhaps even enjoy it?

PhD Students: Should You Switch Labs?

Graduate school (PhD training) is full of roadblocks and obstacles that threaten to hinder progress, but your major professor (PI) should not be one of them. If you are frustrated with your progress and your lab environment has become unbearable, don’t throw in the towel just yet! You may need to change labs. Finding the…

Picking an Advisor: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

After picking a graduate program, the next big decision for a first-year graduate student is picking an advisor. One of the factors to consider in this decision is the academic age of the Professor and his or her lab. Do you want to work for the energetic Assistant Professor that joined the department last year,…

Become a better scientist in just 3 steps at a time.

Every week, our team condenses the best hard-won wisdom from our mentors’ webinars, podcasts, articles, eBooks, and more and delivers it directly to your inbox. 

Don’t delay! Sign up now

Newsletters

• Technical Skills
• More Skills
• Microscopy Focus
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Terms of Use

Copyright © Science Squared – all rights reserved

10 Things Every Molecular Biologist Should Know

The eBook with top tips from our Researcher community.

How to Cope with a Problematic PhD Supervisor

Completing a Ph.D. is a significant academic achievement that requires dedication, hard work, and the guidance of a supportive supervisor.

Do you often feel ignored or belittled by them?

In this article, we will discuss different types of Problematic supervisors and provide strategies for dealing with each type, allowing you to navigate your PhD journey more effortlessly.

Types of Problematic PhD Supervisors

To begin, it’s important to identify the type of supervisor you’re dealing with. According to the book “Coping with Difficult People,” there are seven categories into which difficult people can be divided.

1. Complainer

Any supervisor of this type will constantly have something to complain. It would not be incorrect to suggest that this type of supervisor is born with the ability to see faults in a student’s work.

2. Hostile-Aggressive

3. silent & unresponsive.

Though rare in academia, some supervisors may fail to return calls or emails and might skip addressing your questions during meetings.

4. Indecisive

You could employ the following strategies when dealing with a indecisive supervisor:

5. Super-Agreeable

A supervisor in this category would always appreciate your work and would rarely bring up any facts that would anger or displease you as a student. If such a supervisor makes a promise, it should not be trusted blindly because the majority of the time, empty promises are made by this kind of PhD supervisors.

6. Negativist

To deal with a negative supervisor, you can employ the following strategies:

7. Know-it-All Expert

Supervisors in this category have extensive knowledge in their research area and expect well-researched work.

8. Micro-manager

If your supervisor micromanages, you can do the following:

9. Super-Busy

A supervisor like this would have very little time to devote to your PhD research. Students who have been allocated a super-busy PhD Supervisor must remain self-motivated in order to effectively complete their PhD Thesis.

Your research and contribution to your field are valuable, and you have the resilience to thrive, even in the face of a problematic supervisor.

Related Posts

Phd researcher resume writing: template, phd quotes: inspirational quotes for those pursuing a phd, 40 websites with part-time jobs for phd students to make extra income, causes of phd student burnout and dropout, is it time to quit your phd causes and alternatives, motivation letter for university admission | sample, developing a strong vocabulary for academic writing: tips for phd researchers, how to email professors: sample emails and tips, how to use meta ai for phd research, tips to prepare phd viva-voce presentation slides.

• What to Expect from your PhD Supervisor

Written by Mark Bennett

Your PhD supervisor will play a vital role in your doctorate, supporting you from starting out to thesis submission (and beyond).

But what does ‘PhD supervision’ actually mean in practice? What sort of support and assistance can you expect your supervisor to provide?

This guide introduces some of the obligations and expectations that underpin a healthy supervisory relationship, as well as explaining how that relationship develops along with your PhD.

On this page

What you can expect from your phd supervisor.

Your PhD supervisor will have some core responsibilities towards you and your project. These will normally include meeting to discuss your work, reading drafts and being available to respond emails and other forms of contact within a reasonable timeframe.

Some universities may formalise these commitments in a research degree handbook and you should consult this if so. Other universities may leave more of the details to the student and supervisor themselves.

In either case, the following are some of the basic expectations a PhD supervisor should fulfil:

Expertise in your subject area

Regular supervisory meetings, feedback on work in progress, advice and support, mediation and representation.

Your supervisor will be an expert in your academic field. They will have recognised experience researching it, with a publication record to match. They may even have supervised other students working on related subjects.

What your supervisor won’t be is an expert in your topic. There’s a very simple reason for this: if they were, you couldn’t research it as an original PhD.

In practice this means that you can expect your supervisor to offer competent advice, particularly in the early stages of your research. If you’re suggesting a topic or approach that has been undertaken before, they should be able to alert you to that. If you’re looking for material to consult for your literature review they will be able to make suggestions and help you get started.

Eventually though, your expertise will outstrip your supervisor’s. It’s important to be aware of this and not to rely on your supervisor to understand your project for you.

These are the nuts and bolts of a supervisory relationship. Whatever your project, you can expect your supervisor to set aside regular time for one-to-one meetings and discussion of your work.

How regular these meetings are will be up to you and your supervisor to decide (though your university may set some guidelines). You’ll also have the freedom to set up a schedule (and venue) that works for the two of you. This could be a corner of the lab, your supervisor’s office or even just a coffee shop on campus.

Once this schedule is agreed you can expect your supervisor to be available at appointed times and to have reviewed any drafts, data or other work sent to them (with sufficient notice).

Note that the ability to attend supervisory meetings is an expectation of full-time PhD students who are based ‘on campus’. If you are studying by distance learning your supervisor may arrange for a different format, such as discussing work over the phone or via video conferencing.

Your supervisor may also take responsibility for any formal record keeping associated with meetings (though that doesn’t mean you won’t have any paperwork of your own to fill out).

Unlike other degrees, a PhD doesn’t normally involve any ongoing formal assessment. There are some exceptions such as first-year upgrade exams and training modules, but, ultimately, your doctorate will be judged on the strength of a single piece of work: the thesis you submit for examination at the end.

So what happens to all the chapter drafts, data reports and other work you do along the way? Your supervisor looks at it and offers you feedback. This feedback is formative rather than summative (you won’t be given a grade) but it’s still incredibly important.

In the early stages of a PhD feedback will help ensure you’re on the right track (or get you onto it). Later on you’ll know more about your project than your supervisor, but they’ll still be able to tell you how effectively presented your results are and how persuasive your argument is.

Standards for feedback vary between disciplines, projects and universities. You may find that your supervisor regularly sees your data as part of the working arrangement in your laboratory. Or you may find that you only submit drafts of written work every few months.

Your university may set out its own feedback guidelines, but, as with so many aspects of the supervisory relationship, setting up an effective system will be down to the individuals involved. As a general rule, you can expect your supervisor to review each piece of work in progress at least once and to offer further feedback on the final dissertation draft.

Contact with your supervisor doesn’t need to be restricted to scheduled meetings. They should also be able to offer advice on a more ad hoc basis.

This won’t normally extend to immediate feedback on impromptu chapter drafts sent over at 3am on a Monday morning, but you can expect a response to questions or ideas emailed during office hours.

Remember that one of the key things a supervisor offers isn’t topic expertise (we covered that earlier) so much as research experience. You haven’t completed a PhD before. They have. That problem that seems insurmountable to you? It probably isn’t. And your supervisor will be able to help you see why.

‘Support’ can also extend beyond your PhD thesis and include additional academic opportunities. It’s not uncommon for supervisors to identify suitable conferences for their students to attend or present at. In some cases you may also have the chance to publish work alongside your supervisor or participate as a second author on one of their papers.

You should make the most of these opportunities if they arise, but it’s important not to treat them as a basic expectation. Unless otherwise established by your institution, your supervisor’s main commitment is to your PhD.

For most of your PhD, your supervisor will ‘represent’ the university to you. They’ll be your most frequent point of contact and will be responsible for ensuring you do the things your institution expects of you.

Those include the obvious (researching your PhD) but can also cover other areas such as professional development, progression monitoring and compliance with any ethical policies. You probably won’t find the associated paperwork to be the most thrilling part of your PhD, but can take heart from the fact that your supervisor will probably agree with you.

As well as representing the university to you, your supervisor will also represent you to the university. They’ll understand the peculiarities of your project, together with any specific needs or circumstances you have as a researcher (such as a disability or conditions associated with your funding ).

Your supervisor will therefore be your first point of call if problems arise with your project. It’s part of their role to provide pastoral support and you shouldn’t be afraid to approach them with problems or concerns.

Second supervisors

Some universities assign two supervisors to each PhD students. If so, the 'second' supervisor may be more responsible for your pastoral support and for the administration of your project. This allows the 'primary' supervisor to focus on your academic work.

Targets, planning and meetings

Your supervisor (or supervisors) will be involved throughout your PhD, but their function will change slightly as your doctorate progresses.

In part this will reflect your changing needs as a student. You’ll go from mapping out a project to researching, writing and eventually submitting for examination. This is all part of the normal PhD journey .

Planning your project and setting targets

Most PhDs begin with an initial meeting between the student and their supervisor. This will be your first chance to sit down together and discuss your project.

You’ll review the aims set out in your research proposal and think about how to proceed with the first stages of your doctorate. This normally means gathering scholarly material for your literature review and / or identifying initial avenues for your own research.

Your supervisor’s input will be invaluable here. You’ll probably have some idea of existing studies that relate to your topic. You may also have some idea of the sources you’d like to examine or the data you’d like to collect first.

But your supervisor will have a much more complete sense of the current state of your academic field. They’ll also know many of the other scholars currently working in it.

If there are some avenues you haven’t considered, they’ll be able to make suggestions. And if there’s new work being published, they’ll be able to make you aware of it.

What happens at a PhD supervision?

PhD Supervisions can be as varied as the supervisors (and PhD students) involved.

You may meet formally in an office, or you might simply grab a corner table in the campus coffee shop. Most meetings last from one to two hours, but this will depend on how much there is to discuss and what stage of the PhD you’re at.

A typical PhD supervision normally involves:

• Checking your current progress – Your supervisor will want to know what you’ve done since the last meeting and how you’ve been finding things. If you’ve hit upon difficulties you can discuss these and benefit from your supervisor’s advice.
• Reviewing work in progress – As you get further into your PhD you’ll begin to gather results or even produce chapter drafts. Your supervisor will normally be able to offer feedback on this and make sure you’re heading in the right direction. Their encouragement will be a big source of support, particularly as you begin to get properly stuck into your project.
• Setting future targets – Reflecting on what you’ve done will be an important part of your supervisions, but so will agreeing new short and medium term goals. There are few formal deadlines in a PhD, but setting some ‘self-imposed’ deadlines with your supervisor can help keep you on track.
• Taking care of any admin – Part of your supervisor’s job involves reporting your progress to the university. For structured PhDs this can also mean checking completion of any formal training and development activities.

Eventually, PhD supervision meetings will also focus upon more specific milestones in your doctorate.

A PhD supervisor by any other name...

You might occasionally see different terms to refer to a PhD supervisor, such as dissertation advisor, thesis advisor or doctoral supervisor. Most of the time, these will all refer to the same person (the academic who will support and advise you through your PhD).

Progression and professional development

As you enter the middle stretch of your PhD the relationship with your supervisor will shift slightly. You’ll still have regular meetings, but won’t be as dependent on them to help set targets, or reassure you that you’re heading in the right direction.

Instead your supervisor will be much more focussed on the work you’re producing – particularly as the embryonic version of your final thesis begins to take shape.

Part of this could involve supporting you as you formally ‘upgrade’ to full PhD candidacy (many universities initially register research students for an MPhil ).

Once this is done you’ll be confirmed as a junior scholar, with an original contribution to make to your field. This may therefore be the time to think about taking on additional development opportunities and earning more exposure for your work – another area in which your supervisor’s support will be important.

Reviewing drafts and checking results

By this point in your PhD the outline of your final project will probably be fairly well established. You’ll have done a lot of the research that will form the basis of your thesis. Eventually you’ll begin gathering in your findings and laying the foundations of your dissertation .

Your supervisor will help identify the point at which you’re ready to do this. From then on a big part of their role will be to help review your findings as you move towards the final stretch of your doctorate.

If you’re in the Arts and Humanities this process may involve drafting actual chapters of your dissertation and receiving feedback on them. The writing usually comes later for STEM students, but you’ll still discuss the results of experiments and / or confirm that your data is up to the required standard.

Assisting your professional development

As your project progresses so will your expertise. The primary outlet for that expertise will be your thesis.

But the second and third years of your PhD are also an important period for your professional development – particularly if you’re considering an academic career.

Now is the time to think about:

• Conference presentations
• Scholarly publications
• Teaching work

Most supervisors will be happy to support their students at this point – and will take pride in seeing them step up to the academic stage (or at least the front of the conference hall). Some universities may also make professional development a formal part of their PhD programmes – particularly when it comes to undergraduate teaching.

Submission and examination

Eventually, it will be time to gather up your results, write up your thesis and submit it as a dissertation. The way you do this can vary between projects.

If you’re in the Arts or Humanities you’ll probably have been producing chapter drafts alongside your research and your supervisor will already have provided feedback on them.

If you’re in Science or Engineering you’ll probably have been focussed on conducting experiments and gathering results, with a dedicated ‘writing up period’ at the end of your degree.

Whatever your approach, your supervisor will help you put together a final version of your thesis. They will then read through that draft and provide any feedback or advice. Once your supervisor decides that your dissertation is up to the required standard they will advise you to submit it for examination.

Most universities will allow you to submit against the advice of your supervisors, but this is almost always a bad idea. If your supervisor does not believe a thesis is ready for examination it probably isn’t. Vice versa, your supervisor won’t recommend you submit unless the thesis is likely to pass a viva.

Selecting external examiners

Having guided you up to the submission point your supervisor has one final task to perform: helping you select the external examiner (or examiners) for your viva voce.

This may seem quite minor, but it can actually be one of the most important contributions a supervisor will make to your PhD.

Some universities allow supervisors to invite and appoint external examiners themselves, but this is relatively uncommon in the UK. Instead you will normally have the chance to suggest examiners and will have the final say over who is invited to examine you.

By this point you may have a good idea of who might be a good external examiner – particularly if you’ve been active at conferences and networked within your field. But you should make sure you take advice from your supervisor at this crucial point.

Not only will they know who in your field is best placed to examine your work, they will also know who is most likely to appreciate it. All PhD examinations are objective, but academia can be home to diverse methodologies and approaches. Selecting an examiner with very different principles to your own can make the viva much more challenging for both parties and put extra pressure on your thesis defence.

In most cases a supervisor isn’t directly involved in the actual viva voce exam that concludes your PhD.

They will have reviewed your thesis and helped you select your examiners (see above). They will also meet with you on the day of the viva and provide support as you get ready for the exam. This could simply involve finding the venue and waiting with you as your examiners arrive. Or it could mean calming a few last minute nerves and helping you relax before the event.

Once the viva is over your supervisor may be invited to discuss the result with the panel before you yourself receive feedback. This may allow them to provide some perspective on any areas of concern, but such contributions are usually off the record. Your examiners will be making a decision based on your thesis defence, not your supervisor’s.

Looking for a PhD?

Head over to our course listings to search PhD opportunities all over the world.

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

You may also like....

What happens during a typical PhD, and when? We've summarised the main milestones of a doctoral research journey.

The PhD thesis is the most important part of a doctoral degree. This page will introduce you to what you need to know about the PhD dissertation.

This page will give you an idea of what to expect from your routine as a PhD student, explaining how your daily life will look at you progress through a doctoral degree.

Our guide tells you everything about the application process for studying a PhD in the USA.

Postgraduate students in the UK are not eligible for the same funding as undergraduates or the free-hours entitlement for workers. So, what childcare support are postgraduate students eligible for?

The UK education system is divided into levels. This guide is your one-stop overview into what these levels are and what they mean for postgraduate students.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

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

Select your nearest city

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

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

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

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

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

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

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

What to do if your doctoral supervisor is unresponsive or disengaged

Advice and recommendations on what steps to take if your doctoral supervisor is unresponsive or disengaged..

Every supervisory relationship is different so use your judgement to decide which steps to take, what the appropriate timescale is and what your personal approach should be.

Read this guide for additional information on what to expect from your doctoral supervision and how to make the most of it.

You may also wish to consider the Responsibilities of the Supervision Team as well as the Responsibilities of the Doctoral Student , both of which are appendices of QA7 which sets out the principles for doctoral study (including integrated PhDs and Professional Doctorates).

• For a short period (e.g. 1-2 weeks)

Check they are not on holiday or on leave; check their online calendar or ask close colleagues (e.g. other members of the supervision team, department support contact ).

Check whether their other doctoral students have heard from them.

Send a friendly email or message to check they are OK.

Ask yourself how urgent it is; does the matter require their immediate attention? If it is urgent, send an explicit email (highlight it is urgent by putting the word "urgent" in the heading of the email), go to their office or call.

• For a longer period (e.g. 3-4 weeks)

You might not want to wait this long before taking these actions if it is an urgent issue.

If it is non-urgent and they continue to not engage then you can:

Talk to a member of staff informally to ask for advice (e.g. other members of the supervision team, Doctoral College department support contact , Director of Doctoral Studies or someone else you trust). They may be able to give suggestions on how to proceed, or help broker the discussion.

Send a direct email requesting a quick response explaining why you need their input. Explain you are stuck and can’t make progress (be mindful they may have their own personal challenges of which you are unaware).

Ask for a meeting to discuss the process for future engagement. Set expectations - how do you want the relationship to work and what progress would you like to make?

If there is continued lack of engagement from your supervisor talk to the Director of Doctoral Studies or Head of Department. This is a more formal option as it is likely that the DoS or HoD would need to communicate with the supervisor in order to set expectations. Discussions will remain confidential and they may not need to be communicated directly to your supervisor.

• If the problem persists

If you find that it is often difficult to contact your supervisor(s) and you have tried resolving it using the above methods, you can confidentially report an issue affecting your research by accessing a link available in your six-monthly progress reports or by reporting an issue online . This link will connect you to a simple form that when completed can be routed via the Doctoral College to your Faculty/School Director of Doctoral Studies or the Academic Director of the Doctoral College, who will get in touch to discuss the issue in confidence.

If required, there is a formal process to change supervisor or raise a complaint:

• to change your Supervisor, complete PGR8
• student complaints policy and procedure

If issues are more serious or you would prefer some independent advice, then you can contact the following teams for advice and support:

• The Independent Advice Service for PGR students
• Student Support
• SU Advice and Support

Support for doctoral students

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Doctoral College support

On this page.

PhDLife Blog

Sharing PhD experiences across the University of Warwick and beyond

How to Maintain a Good Relationship with Your PhD Supervisor

Doing a PhD is an exciting thing. To make sure you stay on track, you have a supervisor supporting you through this minefield!  And as helpful as they can be, navigating your relation to your supervisor can be a minefield on its own. Essentially, it’s a difficult relationship where it often isn’t clear what the exact guidelines are. And that can get confusing.

Quick disclaimer: this article is only about what’s going on during the PhD . If you want some more tips on how to pick the supervisor, please read this article on “How to pick your PhD Supervisor.”

Individual Differences It seems that you two just don’t get along that well, neither personally nor professionally. Why?

It is possible that your supervisor has been supervising PhD students for years, and has their own style of doing it that works best for them. But if it’s not working for you, let them know. Have a meeting and indicate what you need. Some people need their supervisor to stop micromanaging, some need their supervisor to be more involved, other just need them to sign off on things. Every PhD is different, every PhD student is different and every PhD student-supervisor relationship is different. So, just indicate what you need or would like from them, and see where that takes you.

The best policy is honesty. If you don’t tell them things aren’t working, how are they supposed to know? They are researchers, not mind-readers.

Cultural Differences It is also possible that you and your supervisor are from very different cultures. The most notable cultural differences in PhD supervision are those relating to hierarchy.

I know PhD students who come from very hierarchical cultures, who take their supervisors’ word as gospel, do everything they say and beat themselves up if this doesn’t work or doesn’t lead to good results. This is not what a PhD is supposed to be. The PhD research is yours and your supervisor(s) support you through it. They should not take over, nor side-line you, nor should you expect them to or want this from them. The other way around is true as well: your supervisor shouldn’t expect you to blindly follow all of their suggestions and do the research as they say it should be done. Hierarchical or not, this is your project!

Again, if it’s causing a rift between you and your supervisor the best thing to do is to talk about it, and go from there.

Lightyears Apart It is possible that after trying to work together for some time (a year or so) it still doesn’t work. The individual or the cultural differences are adding up to the extent that it has just become unproductive. This does happen more often than you think, and you can choose two options from here on:

• You can suffer in silence. You don’t know what to do, don’t want to speak up, or have already spoken up and nothing has changed. Just going with it is less of a hassle now, but is likely to affect your mental state and your ability to deal with work throughout the rest of the PhD.
• You can take action. If you’ve had all the conversations you could possibly have had with your supervisor, then that’s that. Your final conversation will be them helping you pick and transfer to a different supervisor. It will be a hassle initially and you will have to get re-acquainted with a new supervisor and their supervision. But the risk is worth it. The unknown is often better than a known disaster.

Clear Exceptions There are always exceptions to the rule. In this case, those exceptions focus on any type of inappropriate behaviour. Things that should immediately spring to mind are racism, sexism and abuse of power.

The best thing to do if these scenarios are occurring or have occurred is to immediately talk to someone, preferably someone in charge. If you’re not too sure about what’s going on and whether it qualifies as any of the above, talk to your friends and fellow PhD students. If they too don’t think what’s going is appropriate, talk to someone in charge. Even if you’re not too sure, but feel incredibly uncomfortable, I would still recommend you step to HR, the head of your research group or the head of your department, whoever you feel most comfortable with.

There is no excuse for this type of behaviour. It is not condoned and should not be. There is also no coming back from this. If you still want to continue the PhD, you’ll need to transfer supervisor immediately.

All in all, supervisors are people. PhD students are people. And when people get together and have to work together, sometimes friction arises.

The most important part is that you are honest with each other, that you communicate clearly and have the right expectations. And if you feel that you are not meeting each other’s expectations, talk and adjust. It’s a relationship like any other.

Merle van den Akker is a PhD student with the Behavioural Science Group at WBS, looking into the effect of contactless payments on how me manage our finances. She tweets at @MoneyMindMerle.

If you have any tips on maintaining a good relationship with your supervisor, tweet us at  @ResearchEx , email us at [email protected], or leave a comment below.

Share this:

Comments are closed.

Want the latest PhD Life posts direct to your inbox? Subscribe below.

Type your email…

Blog at WordPress.com.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

Susanna Chamberlain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Griffith University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s no secret that getting a PhD is a stressful process .

One of the factors that can help or hinder this period of study is the relationship between supervisor and student. Research shows that effective supervision can significantly influence the quality of the PhD and its success or failure.

PhD supervisors tend to fulfil several functions: the teacher; the mentor who can support and facilitate the emotional processes; and the patron who manages the springboard from which the student can leap into a career.

There are many styles of supervision that are adopted – and these can vary depending on the type of research being conducted and subject area.

Although research suggests that providing extra mentoring support and striking the right balance between affiliation and control can help improve PhD success and supervisor relationships, there is little research on the types of PhD-supervisor relationships that occur.

From decades of experience of conducting and observing PhD supervision, I’ve noticed ten types of common supervisor relationships that occur. These include:

The candidate is expected to replicate the field, approach and worldview of the supervisor, producing a sliver of research that supports the supervisor’s repute and prestige. Often this is accompanied by strictures about not attempting to be too “creative”.

Cheap labour

The student becomes research assistant to the supervisor’s projects and becomes caught forever in that power imbalance. The patron-client roles often continue long after graduation, with the student forever cast in the secondary role. Their own work is often disregarded as being unimportant.

The “ghost supervisor”

The supervisor is seen rarely, responds to emails only occasionally and has rarely any understanding of either the needs of the student or of their project. For determined students, who will work autonomously, the ghost supervisor is often acceptable until the crunch comes - usually towards the end of the writing process. For those who need some support and engagement, this is a nightmare.

The relationship is overly familiar, with the assurance that we are all good friends, and the student is drawn into family and friendship networks. Situations occur where the PhD students are engaged as babysitters or in other domestic roles (usually unpaid because they don’t want to upset the supervisor by asking for money). The chum, however, often does not support the student in professional networks.

Collateral damage

When the supervisor is a high-powered researcher, the relationship can be based on minimal contact, because of frequent significant appearances around the world. The student may find themselves taking on teaching, marking and administrative functions for the supervisor at the cost of their own learning and research.

The practice of supervision becomes a method of intellectual torment, denigrating everything presented by the student. Each piece of research is interrogated rigorously, every meeting is an inquisition and every piece of writing is edited into oblivion. The student is given to believe that they are worthless and stupid.

Creepy crawlers

Some supervisors prefer to stalk their students, sometimes students stalk their supervisors, each with an unhealthy and unrequited sexual obsession with the other. Most Australian universities have moved actively to address this relationship, making it less common than in previous decades.

Captivate and con

Occasionally, supervisor and student enter into a sexual relationship. This can be for a number of reasons, ranging from a desire to please to a need for power over youth. These affairs can sometimes lead to permanent relationships. However, what remains from the supervisor-student relationship is the asymmetric set of power balances.

Almost all supervision relationships contain some aspect of the counsellor or mentor, but there is often little training or desire to develop the role and it is often dismissed as pastoral care. Although the life experiences of students become obvious, few supervisors are skilled in dealing with the emotional or affective issues.

Colleague in training

When a PhD candidate is treated as a colleague in training, the relationship is always on a professional basis, where the individual and their work is held in respect. The supervisor recognises that their role is to guide through the morass of regulation and requirements, offer suggestions and do some teaching around issues such as methodology, research practice and process, and be sensitive to the life-cycle of the PhD process. The experience for both the supervisor and student should be one of acknowledgement of each other, recognising the power differential but emphasising the support at this time. This is the best of supervision.

There are many university policies that move to address a lot of the issues in supervisor relationships , such as supervisor panels, and dedicated training in supervising and mentoring practices. However, these policies need to be accommodated into already overloaded workloads and should include regular review of supervisors.

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

Associate Professor, Psychology

Service Delivery Fleet Coordinator

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

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

Tress Academic

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

May 14, 2019 by Tress Academic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here are our five pillars of good PhD supervision:

1. Guidance

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

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

2. Expertise

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

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

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

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

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

4. Regular interaction

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

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

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

4.1. Supervisory meetings

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

4.2. Spontaneous encounters

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

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

5. Advice on progress

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

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

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

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

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

How good is your supervision?

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

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

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

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

Related resources:

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

More information: 

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

© 2019 Tress Academic

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

Community Blog

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

What Makes A Good PhD Supervisor?

• By Dr Harry Hothi
• August 12, 2020

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

Introduction

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

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

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

The Role of a PhD Supervisor

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

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

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

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

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

Qualities to Look For in A Good PhD Supervisor

1. a track record of successful phd student supervision.

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

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

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

2. Is an Expert in their Field of Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Has Enough Time to Provide Good PhD Supervision

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

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

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

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

4. Is a Good Mentor with a Supportive Personality

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

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

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

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

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

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

A science investigatory project is a science-based research project or study that is performed by school children in a classroom, exhibition or science fair.

Find out how you can use Scrivener for PhD Thesis & Dissertation writing to streamline your workflow and make academic writing fun again!

Fieldwork can be essential for your PhD project. Use these tips to help maximise site productivity and reduce your research time by a few weeks.

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

Browse PhDs Now

Do you need to have published papers to do a PhD? The simple answer is no but it could benefit your application if you can.

Starting your PhD can feel like a daunting, exciting and special time. They’ll be so much to think about – here are a few tips to help you get started.

Dr Tuohilampi gained her PhD in Mathematics Education from the University of Helsinki in 2016. She is now a lecturer at the University of Helsinki, a Research Fellow at the University of New South Wales, Sydney and has also founded the company Math Hunger.

Gabrielle’s a 2nd year Immunology PhD student at the University of Michigan. Her research focus on the complications of obesity and type 2 diabetes in the clearance of respiratory bacterial infections.

Join Thousands of Students

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

What to do if your phd advisor is ignoring you, published by steve tippins on june 27, 2019 june 27, 2019.

Last Updated on: 7th June 2024, 04:40 am

“My PhD Advisor is ignoring me!” I hear this type of statement surprisingly often from students and clients. While sometimes it’s just a case of nerves on the part of the student, there are times when someone’s PhD advisor really is ignoring them.

In this post I will try to explain why your advisor might be ignoring you and possible actions that you can take.

What to Do if Your PhD Advisor Is Ignoring You

• Understand university policy
• Write your Chair
• Set up a phone call
• Ask for a new committee member

Jump to the Action Steps here.

Why is my PhD Advisor Ignoring Me?

Why do advisors ignore their students? Some simply feel that doctoral work should be an independent process–and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Others may be underpaid and overloaded with work. In rare cases some may actually be negligent. Either way, you’ll want to do something about it. But first let’s explore the possible reasons why your PhD advisor might be ignoring you.

Nervous tension

Is your PhD advisor actually ignoring you? It does happen, but if you’ve been living off of coffee and instant noodles and staring at your computer screen 23 hours a day for the past week, it may be worth evaluating if your perception is accurate.

The dissertation writing process can be enormously stressful. Sometimes, a student working late will discover a critical problem with their paper and email their advisor about it at 10 pm. 

They’ll wake up at 6:30 am to start work again and check their email, but there’s no response. They have breakfast and check again at 7:15. By 8 am, they’ve checked their email four times, each with increasing anxiety about the lack of response. 

Meanwhile, the professor is maintaining a healthy work-life balance by not checking his or her email outside of working hours. Depending on how many students a professor is advising and how many other responsibilities they have, they may not even get back to you within 24 hours. 

It’s a good idea to check in with your advisor when you start working together about what sort of response times you can expect, and how they prefer to communicate.

Perhaps email works best for them, or maybe they prefer to schedule a phone call. Maybe Wednesday afternoons are a particularly good time to be in touch. The more you can communicate with them about what works best, the better relationship you will have.

A culture of less support

Many doctoral students go through what I call the  “go wander in the woods and see what you find” model. See my post on this topic. Basically you are left on your own to find what you need to complete your study. While this can be overwhelming, it’s also incredibly rewarding to know that you did it almost all by yourself. 

Becoming a scholar capable of independent thought and research is part of the purpose of the dissertation requirement, so you may receive less support than you’re used to simply as a natural part of the process. Professors may expect you to be capable of handling many aspects of the process on your own.

However, you shouldn’t be left totally in the dark. You have a PhD advisor for a reason–because you need support designing your study, settling on your methodology, and refining your research questions. There is a difference between hand-holding and providing critical support, and a good advisor will understand this and be available for your needs, within reason.

Lower salaries

An additional factor to consider is how institutions pay advisors . At many schools, faculty are part time/adjuncts. This is very cost efficient for the school as minimal benefits are paid and tenure is not part of the equation. 

Under this scenario your advisor may be getting paid something in the neighborhood of $100 a month to work with you. This number may seem very low based upon your tuition dollars but it is very close to actual figures at several institutions (this could explain some of the turnover that you see among faculty).

With numbers like these, faculty may ration their availability to match compensation levels. I have never heard this stated overtly but in an economically rational world it would be easy to see this happen. Regardless of whether it is benign neglect or rational economic behavior, the end result is you waiting for responses.

What You Can Do if Your PhD Advisor is Ignoring You

If you find yourself in a situation where you are feeling neglected or that your submissions seem to have fallen into an abyss, there are some things that you can do. Don’t escalate to the last option immediately; there could be a legitimate reason for a delay and you don’t want to burn any bridges unnecessarily. 

Here are the steps you can take if your PhD advisor is ignoring you.

1. Understand university policy and gently hold people to it

Before you start contacting people, I suggest that you look into your school’s policy regarding document review times. Most schools have a policy that work must be returned within a certain time period. 

If you find that you are still within the allotted time then you will have to be patient and work on other things (for example, you can never spend enough time reviewing the literature). If, however, you find that your Chair/committee has exceeded the allotted time then move on to the next step.

2. Write your Chair 

Sometimes people forget or situations beyond their control arise. Respectfully reach out to your Chair and ask about the status of your most recent submission. This may get things moving and get you where you want to be.

3. Set up a phone call

If an email does not get the desired results, set up a call with your Chair. A phone call can allow you to express your concerns in a respectful way and let your Chair. Sometimes this is all that’s needed to get things back on track. 

4. Complain

If you still feel your PhD advisor is ignoring you, then it is time to bring your concerns to the attention of your academic advisor and perhaps the program director (or whatever title your school uses). 

Schools do not like to have students complain and when they do they usually take action. Your Chair does not like to hear from his/her boss that there have been complaints. This can clear things up quickly.  However, I urge you to exhaust all the other options first.

5. Ask for a new committee member

After all options have been exercised the last thing to try is to ask for a new Chair. Be aware that schools are reluctant to do this and even if they do, it can cause a delay as a new Chair is brought up to speed.

There are times when things move more slowly than expected. Some seem to be systemic and other times people need to be prodded to help things move forward. This is your degree, so it is up to you to both stay on top of things and remember to start with kindness. It really is true that catch more flies with honey. Good luck!

PS. If you’re looking for additional support, I also coach students who are in the process of writing their dissertations. Or, if you’re in need of an editor for your dissertation , we’ve got you covered.

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

Dissertation memes.

Sometimes you can’t dissertate anymore and you just need to meme. Don’t worry, I’ve got you. Here are some of my favorite dissertation memes that I’ve seen lately. My Favorite Dissertation Memes For when you Read more…

Surviving Post Dissertation Stress Disorder

The process of earning a doctorate can be long and stressful – and for some people, it can even be traumatic. This may be hard for those who haven’t been through a doctoral program to Read more…

PhD by Publication

PhD by publication, also known as “PhD by portfolio” or “PhD by published works,” is a relatively new route to completing your dissertation requirements for your doctoral degree. In the traditional dissertation route, you have Read more…

• Assistant Professor / Lecturer
• PhD Candidate
• Senior Researcher / Group Leader
• Researcher / Analyst
• Research Assistant / Technician
• Administration
• Executive / Senior Industry Position
• Mid-Level Industry Position
• Junior Industry Position
• Graduate / Traineeship
• Remote/Hybrid Jobs
• Summer / Winter Schools
• Online Courses
• Professional Training
• Supplementary Courses
• All Courses
• PhD Programs
• Master's Programs
• MBA Programs
• Bachelor's Programs
• Online Programs
• All Programs
• Fellowships
• Postgraduate Scholarships
• Undergraduate Scholarships
• Prizes & Contests
• Financial Aid
• Research/Project Funding
• Other Funding
• All Scholarships
• Conferences
• Exhibitions / Fairs
• Online/Hybrid Conferences
• All Conferences
• Career Advice
• Study Advice
• Work Abroad
• Study Abroad
• Campus Reviews
• Recruiter Advice
• Teaching Advice Articles
• INOMICS Educator Resources
• INOMICS Academy
• INOMICS Study Guides
• Economics Terms A-Z
• University / College
• Graduate / Business School
• Research Institute
• Bank / Central Bank
• Private Company / Industry
• Consulting / Legal Firm
• Association / NGO
• All EconDirectory
• 📖 INOMICS Handbook

All Categories

All disciplines.

• Scholarships
• All Economics Terms A-Z
• EconDirectory
• All 📖 INOMICS Handbook

Types Of Difficult PhD Supervisors And How To Successfully Deal With Them

Read a summary or generate practice questions using the INOMICS AI tool

Supervision is a difficult task, and there is often conflict between supervisors and their PhD students. Even if you find a supervisor with whom you have excellent rapport, there can still be problems. Here are some of the types of difficult supervisor which you might encounter, and tips on how to manage them.

Micromanagers

A micromanager is one who is overly controlling and wishes to make input on all of your decisions, however small. For example, they may want to check every single slide or piece of writing which you produce, multiple times. Or they may try to dictate the way in which you divide up your time and how you prioritise. Micromanagers can be difficult to deal with, as different students and supervisors have different ideas about how much management a supervisor should perform. For some PhD students, having a lot of guidance and having their work checked regularly can be reassuring, while for others, it feels patronising. So if you find you supervisor to be too involved, remember that this is an issue of preference and not necessarily an indication that your supervisor thinks that you are not competent.

To deal with a micromanager, you'll need to take a dual approach: firstly, demonstrating that you can perform tasks competently without their guidance. If you show that you can prepare a presentation well, for example, without their influence, then they will feel less need to manage you in the future. The other approach is to talk with them and try to discover their underlying concerns. Do they feel like they need to micromanage because they are concerned about your ability to organize your time? Do they worry that your research will go over budget? Or are they trying to be supportive by giving you lots of feedback on your writing? Identify the underlying concern which is leading to the micromanaging behaviour, and try to demonstrate that their worries are not founded.

Suggested Opportunities

• Postdoc Job, Researcher / Analyst Job
• Posted 1 day ago

Post-doctoral researcher in Finance/Economics

• Research Assistant / Technician Job, Postdoc Job
• Posted 3 days ago

Wissenschaftliche:r Mitarbeiter:in (w/m/d) Koordination Mentoring

• Postdoc Job
• Posted 6 days ago

Post-doctoral position (m/f/d) (Position number: 41-2024 Postdoc Macro)

• Posted 1 week ago

Post-doctoral position on “Political Economy of Climate Policy” (m/f/d)

Absentee supervisors are those who are not present during your PhD, either physically (i.e. they are away travelling a lot) or metaphorically (they are so busy that you never see them). This is a common problem with senior professors and those who supervise lots of PhD students. Without advice and guidance from a supervisor, performing your PhD research is much harder.

To deal with an absentee supervisor, you can first try laying out an agreement with them about regular meetings. If you can arrange a meeting with them once a week or once every two weeks at a set time, you'll know that you at least have the chance to get their input on any issues. Often professors can be bad at replying to emails, so a face-to-face meeting is the best way to get their attention. If you can't get regular meetings with them, you can turn to your second supervisor or other senior researchers who you trust, and ask for input from them instead. However, if it is truly not possible to see your supervisor regularly, you should consider moving to a different supervisor who can give you and your research the time and attention which you deserve.

Overly Critical

It is part of the supervisor's job to offer criticism of your work, but some supervisors take this too far. Supervisors who yell at their students, who belittle them, or who make unpleasant personal comments are not unheard of. Dealing with such a supervisor can leave students stressed, depressed, and insecure about their own abilities . Doing a PhD can certainly be an emotional experience, but if students are regularly leaving the office in tears after speaking with their supervisor, then something is very wrong.

To deal with such a supervisor, you will need to assess how severe the situation is. If you supervisor is generally well meaning but rather harsh with their feedback, you can try talking to them about your overall progress in your PhD. Some supervisors, especially if they are new to management, forget that it's important to give positive feedback as well as pointing out errors. They may in fact be very satisfied with your work, but they only mention the negative points that they see. In this case, by talking to them about your overall progress you can get a more positive picture of your work.

In severe cases, however, this may not help. If a supervisor is abusive towards you and they are having an overall negative effect on your life and your work, then you need to protect yourself by leaving their group and finding a new supervisor. Remember that a supervisor should support you and assist you, not make you feel like a failure. You can always get another supervisor, but your mental health is of the highest priority.

Currently trending in Russia

• Master's Program
• Posted 1 year ago

RESD – Two Year Master’s programme in Resource Economics and Sustainable Development

• Posted 1 month ago

Incoming FSR postdoctoral fellowships 2025 - LIDAM (UCLouvain - Belgium) call for applications

• Posted 2 weeks ago

Senior Research Fellow / Postdoc (m/f/div)

Related Items

PostDoc Researcher at UNU-MERIT (modeling): inequality impacts of the green and digital technology

36th RSEP International Conference on Economics, Finance and Business

MSc Economics

Featured announcements, rsep & srh dresden school of management international conference on…, university of glasgow adam smith business school, wits global fintech conference, 2024 asia-pacific conference on economics and finance ‘live’ (apef…, oxford economics september summer school, upcoming deadlines.

• Aug 21, 2024 Two Associate or Full Professors of Economics
• Aug 22, 2024 RESD – Two Year Master’s programme in Resource Economics and Sustainable Development
• Aug 23, 2024 RSEP & SRH Dresden School of Management International Conference on Economics, Finance and Business
• Aug 26, 2024 University of Glasgow Adam Smith Business School
• Aug 28, 2024 MSc in Economics

INOMICS AI Tools

The INOMICS AI can generate an article summary or practice questions related to the content of this article. Try it now!

An error occured

Please try again later.

3 Practical questions, generated by our AI model

For more questions on economics study topics, with practice quizzes and detailed answer explanations, check out the INOMICS Study Guides.

Login to your account

Email Address

Forgot your password? Click here.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

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

Catherine Bannon

J. scott p. mccain, introduction.

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

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

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

Rule 1: Align research interests

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

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

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

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

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

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

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

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

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

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

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

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

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

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

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

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

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

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

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

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

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

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

Rule 9: Trust your gut

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

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

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Perhaps It’s Not You It’s Them: PhD Student-Supervisor Relationships

• First Online: 15 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Zoë J. Ayres 2  

9388 Accesses

This chapter explores the PhD Student-Supervisor relationship, outlining the role of a PhD Supervisor, discussing relationship management, and how to recognise signs of bullying and harassment if they occur.

(Trigger Warnings: bullying, harassment, sexual harassment)

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 EPUB and 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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Depending on your country of study a PhD Supervisor may be called the Principal Investigator (PI) or you PhD Supervisor, or PhD Advisor. For the purpose of this chapter I will use “Supervisor”, to mean the academic in charge of your PhD research.

I count myself lucky every single day that I fell into the 76% category.

If you did not get this memo before starting your PhD, please do not worry. It is common for first-generation students to not get this information ahead of time.

Survivor bias is defined as the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility.

The sunk cost fallacy reasoning states that further investments or commitments are justified because the resources already invested will be lost otherwise . In the case of PhD study it can be that if we just “stick it out” and try to manage the abuse we are being subject to we will get our PhD. In reality, leaving and starting a PhD elsewhere may be beneficial.

van Rooij E, Fokkens-Bruinsma M, Jansen E (2021) Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD project characteristics. Stud Contin Educ 43(1):48–67

Article   Google Scholar  

Woolston C (2019) PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature 575(7782):403–407

Pyke KD (2018) Institutional betrayal: inequity, discrimination, bullying, and retaliation in academia. Sociol Perspect 61(1):5–13

Vilkinas T (1998) Management of the PhD process: the challenging role of the supervisor. In: Quality in postgraduate research. University of Adelaide, Adelaide

Google Scholar  

Rose GL (2003) Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Res High Educ 44(4):473–494

Vilkinas T, Cartan G (2006) The integrated competing values framework: its spatial configuration. J Manage Dev 25(6):505–521

Guccione K, Hutchinson S (2021) Coaching and mentoring for academic development. Emerald Group, Bingley

Book   Google Scholar  

Hund AK, Churchill AC, Faist AM, Havrilla CA, Stowell SML, McCreery HF, Ng J, Pinzone CA, Scordato ESC (2018) Transforming mentorship in STEM by training scientists to be better leaders. Ecol Evol 8(20):9962–9974

Amundsen C, McAlpine L (2009) ‘Learning supervision’: trial by fire. Innov Educ Teach Int 46(3):331–342

Schimanski LA, Alperin JP (2018) The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: past, present, and future. F1000Research 71605

Bagilhole B (1993) How to keep a good woman down: an investigation of the role of institutional factors in the process of discrimination against women academics. Br J Sociol Educ 14(3):261–274

Aiston SJ, Jung J (2015) Women academics and research productivity: an international comparison. Gend Educ 27(3):205–220

Giacalone RA, Knouse SB, Montagliani A (1997) Motivation for and prevention of honest responding in exit interviews and surveys. J Psychol 131(4):438–448

Hall W, Liva S (2022) Falling through the cracks: graduate students’ experiences of mentoring absence. Can J Scholarsh Teach Learn 13(1):1–15

UK Research Councils Statement of Expectations for Postgraduate Training. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UKRI-120721-StatementOfExpectationsPostGradTraining.pdf . Accessed 21 Jun 2022

Chamberlain S (2016) Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships - which is yours? https://theconversation.com/ten-types-of-phd-supervisor-relationships-which-is-yours-52967 . Accessed 21 Jun 2022

Clay M (2012) Sink or swim: drowning the next generation of research leaders? Aust Q 83(4):26–31

Bégin C, Géarard L (2013) The role of supervisors in light of the experience of doctoral students. Policy Futures Educ 11(3):267–276

Hemprich-Bennett D, Rabaiotti D, Kennedy E (2021) Beware survivorship bias in advice on science careers. Nature 598(7880):373–374

Parker-Jenkins M (2018) Mind the gap: developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Stud High Educ 43(1):57–71

Moran H, Karlin L, Lauchlan E, Rappaport SJ, Bleasdale B, Wild L, Dorr J (2020) Understanding research culture: what researchers think about the culture they work in. Wellcome Trust, London, UK

Lee D (1998) Sexual harassment in PhD supervision. Gend Educ 10(3):299–312

Misawa M (2015) Cuts and bruises caused by arrows, sticks, and stones in academia: theorizing three types of racist and homophobic bullying in adult and higher education. Adult Learn 26(1):6–13

Cohen A, Baruch Y (2021) Abuse and exploitation of doctoral students: a conceptual model for traversing a long and winding road to academia. J Bus Ethics:1–18

Moss SE, Mahmoudi M (2021) STEM the bullying: an empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science. EClinicalMedicine 40101121

Gewin V (2021) How to blow the whistle on an academic bully. Nature 593(7858):299–301

Saló-Salgado L, Acocella A, Arzuaga García I, El Mousadik S, and Zvinavashe A (2021) Managing up: how to communicate effectively with your PhD adviser. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03703-z . Accessed 15 Feb 2022

The Wellbeing Thesis (2022) Managing your supervisor. https://thewellbeingthesis.org.uk/using-the-resources-available/managing-your-supervisor/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2022

Eley A, Jennings R (2005) Effective postgraduate supervision: improving the student/supervisor relationship. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), London, UK

Hockey J (1996) A contractual solution to problems in the supervision of PhD degrees in the UK. Stud High Educ 21(3):359–371

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zoë J. Ayres

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ayres, Z.J. (2022). Perhaps It’s Not You It’s Them: PhD Student-Supervisor Relationships. In: Managing your Mental Health during your PhD. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_9

Published : 15 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-14193-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-14194-2

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (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

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 FEATURE
• 25 April 2022

How to handle a supervisor’s sudden departure

• Nikki Forrester 0

Nikki Forrester is a science journalist based in West Virginia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

“I don’t want to be here, and I can’t get out,” says a geosciences student who started her PhD programme in 2015 and has no clear end in sight. “I want to find a postdoc and get the mentorship experience I’m not getting currently, but I can’t finish my dissertation.”

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

Nature 604 , 787-789 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01116-0

Related Articles

Why you need an agenda for meetings with your principal investigator

• Research management

How to win funding to talk about your science

Career Feature 15 AUG 24

Friends or foes? An academic job search risked damaging our friendship

Career Column 14 AUG 24

‘Who will protect us from seeing the world’s largest rainforest burn?’ The mental exhaustion faced by climate scientists

Career Feature 12 AUG 24

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

The need for equity in Brazilian scientific funding

Correspondence 13 AUG 24

Canadian graduate-salary boost will only go to a select few

A hike of postdoc salary alone will not retain the best researchers in low- or middle-income countries

Faculty Positions in Center of Bioelectronic Medicine, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

SLS invites applications for multiple tenure-track/tenured faculty positions at all academic ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Faculty Positions, Aging and Neurodegeneration, Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine

Applicants with expertise in aging and neurodegeneration and related areas are particularly encouraged to apply.

Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine (WLLSB)

Faculty Positions in Chemical Biology, Westlake University

We are seeking outstanding scientists to lead vigorous independent research programs focusing on all aspects of chemical biology including...

Assistant Professor Position in Genomics

The Lewis-Sigler Institute at Princeton University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in Genomics.

Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, US

The Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University

Associate or Senior Editor, BMC Medical Education

Job Title: Associate or Senior Editor, BMC Medical Education Locations: New York or Heidelberg (Hybrid Working Model) Application Deadline: August ...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

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

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.

What can I do if my supervisor does not publish my research results?

By this, I do not mean I did not obtain significant research results. My supervisor has told me to finish up a draft of paper for submission, I wrote it, then after few months, he told me to correct some parts and did more experiments on certain area, I followed all his instructions and wrote a second draft to him. And until now, it is already one year after sending my draft to him, and still I have no idea when he will publish it.

Actually, this not only happens to me, it happens to all the members in my research group. The average time my supervisor publishes our results is about 2-3 years after we have finished all the required experiments. The results just become idle. I would like to ask, if this is a common phenomenon (and the possible reasons behind it), if not, what I (and my colleagues) can do about it? You know as a research student, having publication is very important, it is really frustrating.

• publications

• 28 Why are you relying on your supervisor to publish these results for you? –  xLeitix Commented May 2, 2014 at 7:17
• 4 Do you know if it has been submitted for publishing/review or not? In some areas such delays between submission ang publishing are typical even if your supervisor does everything promptly. However, I'd say that being capable to publish your own results without help of others (and occasionally despite resistance of others) is a mandatory prerequisite to graduation; and waiting a year or more isn't showing such capability. –  Peteris Commented May 2, 2014 at 7:26
• 8 You mean I can bypass my supervisor to submit paper on my own? without his consensus? My paper should include him as a correponding author… –  bingung Commented May 2, 2014 at 8:17
• 4 @jc2254 Can you elaborate why your paper should include him as the corresponding author? If he's a co-author, then that's one thing; but it's perfectly possible (and expected in many areas) to have papers authored by you alone. Students should consult with their advisors/supervisors only because that helps to make a paper better and publish it quicker; but if it doesn't help, then their agreement (or any involvement) isn't strictly required, barring some intellectual propery/funding attribution issues. –  Peteris Commented May 2, 2014 at 8:22
• 13 Have you asked him the question "Hey, whats up with you not publishing my paper? Its been a year now you know..."? –  Jakob Commented May 2, 2014 at 13:13

4 Answers 4

This seems like a strange situation, since it is very counterproductive for both you and your supervisor. If this is indeed common in your group, I am sure several ideas have been scooped by the time they finally get submitted. Unfortunately, I really don't have any decent idea why your supervisor would act this way.

The most important thing to do is to talk to your supervisor and don't let him/her dismiss the issue . This may seem like an aggressive approach, but you can disguise it as a learning experience, e.g. " Please tell me what is wrong with the current manuscript because I believe it is ready for submission, oh wise one ". Whatever you do, remain polite.

A few approaches you can try (all of which are reasonable, so don't be shy):

• Send reminders and send them often. Ask what you can do to improve the manuscript. If your supervisor has no further suggestions to change the manuscript, ask where you can submit it to directly. Don't wait for him/her to wake up. This approach may lead to your supervisor turning it into a ping-pong match, asking you to make trivial but time-consuming extensions again and again. In this case, confront your supervisor and explain your perspective.
• If you can find an appropriate call for papers, ask permission to send the manuscript there. Calls typically have deadlines and are not necessarily a downgrade in terms of venue quality. This includes conferences and journal special issues. Having a hard deadline might help.

• 1 Thank you very much for the suggestions. Of course we have talked to our supervisor, he just said 'ok, I will look and see if anything to add', after few weeks we asked again, and he again said 'I will look into it'. We don't want to be annoying and make him angry, but time really goes very fast…there are some cases my supervisor asked us to repeat some experiments few years ago to publish… –  bingung Commented May 2, 2014 at 8:08
• 1 This is beyond weird. I've done one iteration of what you describe (tell a student I'll look into it and then drop the ball for a week or so), but I can't imagine doing this for that long. –  Suresh Commented May 2, 2014 at 15:26
• 2 @jc2254 I had similar (not that bad though) situation. Just come to him and say: "I'm sending it to Whatever Research Journal on Friday, are there any last changes?" Take it into your own hands. If there are several authors besides you and your supervisor, do it together. If there is some postdoc in your co-authors, he can easily have the authority, say "John is planning to send it tomorrow, just letting you know". Make it so as if he is not really required for it. If he'll be fine with it, then just go ahead. This is what I used to do anyway... –  sashkello Commented May 3, 2014 at 12:46
• After looking at many comments and answers, I think what I can do is to talk to my supervisor. There is a risk of conflict but seems there is no choice...I am from engineering, and I haven't seen my group members or other groups having students published without going through the supervisor. While I know it is technically possible to submit my papers directly, I still not sure it is appropriate or not, but this really remains an option if discussion with my supervisor failed. –  bingung Commented May 4, 2014 at 16:22

Finish writing the paper yourself. Send your supervisor a final draft, inviting him to submit his comments on the paper and suggest some changes.

If your supervisor does not wish to collaborate on the submission, it's possible he will be OK with you finishing and submitting the paper yourself, perhaps as the sole author. Make sure to acknowledge his capacity as your supervisor at the end of the paper, if he is not included as a co-author.

If it's your data, and you wrote the paper, you have every right to publish it by yourself as long as you offer your supervisor the chance to collaborate or object.

Best-case scenario? Your own paper gets published, or your supervisor gets jolted back to reality and collaborates with you on finishing the paper together. Worst case scenario? Your paper gets rejected (don't fret, that can happen often!), so you have to head back to your supervisor or Academia.SE for advice on re-submitting it or choosing another journal.

• 8 I am not sure whether bypassing the supervisor is a good idea for a starting researcher. There may be good reasons why the supervisor is delaying submission. Additionally, judging by the OP I assume the supervisor is a co-author. Submitting without the consent of any of the co-authors is a very bad idea. –  Marc Claesen Commented May 2, 2014 at 9:14
• 1 @MarcClaesen I agree, it's a bad idea. But I don't think that writing to your supervisor with a draft, asking "do you have time to help me author and submit this paper? I would really like to publish these results soon" bypasses him at all. My point is that if he won't collaborate, the OP should ask if his/her supervisor has any objection to publishing the results as a single-author paper. TL;DR: "if you don't have time to help me, is it OK if I finish this by myself?". –  Moriarty Commented May 2, 2014 at 9:26
• 14 @Moriarty: If a co-author doesn't actively consent to the submission of a paper, that is sufficient grounds for withdrawal or retraction. Never submit a paper without the active agreement of all co-authors! –  aeismail Commented May 2, 2014 at 10:16
• 1 @aeismail I wrote the answer poorly. The OP's supervisor should either agree to (a) collaborate on finishing the paper, (b) let the OP finish and submit it (possibly as the sole author), or (c) explain why (b) is not allowable. I don't advise submitting without discussing your intentions with the other parties first! –  Moriarty Commented May 2, 2014 at 11:30
• 3 " totally unrealistic if the paper has been written by student alone." - depends on the area. –  Suresh Commented May 2, 2014 at 22:40

In a comment, OP added:

Of course we have talked to our supervisor, he just said 'ok, I will look and see if anything to add', after few weeks we asked again, and he again said 'I will look into it'.

Try to understand why your supervisor behaves likes this. Some hypotheses:

• Your supervisor prefers to spent time on some other work.
• Your supervisor has to focus on some other work for external reasons.
• Your supervisor prefers to spent time working with someone else.
• Your supervisor finds the paper boring and avoids working on it.
• Your supervisor is a perfectionist and wants to avoid publishing a non-perfect paper.
• Your supervisor has bad time-management skills and forgets to look at your paper.
• Your supervisor doesn't really want to publish this for some reason.
• ... many more possibilities ...

It is important to understand why your supervisor is behaving like this, in order to react appropriately. For example, if your supervisor has very bad time-management skills and keeps forgetting your paper, it is probably better to ask about this much more often than every few weeks.

Options for understanding your supervisor better include just asking him or her about it, or asking someone who successfully collaborated with your supervisor in the past. Maybe some former grad students of your supervisor figured out how to effectively interact with your supervisor and you can learn the trick from them.

My dear friend, I am somehow in a similar situation. I have analyzed N body simulations and have written one conference paper with my supervisor. The plan with my supervisor was to write a very good paper on it and submit it to a leading journal in the field. All is in order, I have the plots, interpretations of the results, 3 oral presentations on the results, but somehow my supervisor keep delaying apparently the publications of the paper. After I have seen this, I have approached another problems in the field and I have one paper accepted with me as a sole author, and one in review with no supervisor, maintaining some sort of liberty. The irony is that the impact factor of my of the journal where I have published is +1 higher than the usual journal the supervisor normally publish. If you wish to keep a balance with your supervisor, I would recommend leaving at it's normal pace, keeping in mind that it is only one paper, and go publishing with your peers on another papers and problems in your field. Good luck!

You must log in to answer this question.

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

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Questions about best way to raise the handlebar on my bike
• can a CPU once removed retain information that poses a security concern?
• How can I obscure branding on the side of a pure white ceramic sink?
• What mode of transport is ideal for the cold post-apocalypse?
• When would it be legal to ask back (parts of) the salary?
• Prove that there's a consecutive sequence of days during which I took exactly 11 pills
• Many and Many of - a subtle difference in meaning?
• What would be the optimal amount of pulses per second for pulsed laser rifles?
• How to cite a book if only its chapters have DOIs?
• Has the application of a law ever being appealed anywhere due to the lawmakers not knowing what they were voting/ruling?
• Did Newton predict the deflection of light by gravity?
• Sums of X*Y chunks of the nonnegative integers
• Blocking between two MERGE queries inserting into the same table
• Erase the loops
• The minimal Anti-Sudoku
• What does the \end mean in LaTeX's environment?
• With 42 supernovae in 37 galaxies, how do we know SH0ES results is robust?
• Will the american customs be suspicious of my luggage if i bought a lot of the same item?
• Do "Whenever X becomes the target of a spell" abilities get triggered by counterspell?
• Do space stations have anything that big spacecraft (such as the Space Shuttle and SpaceX Starship) don't have?
• Inaccurate group pace
• I submitted a paper and later realised one reference was missing, although I had written the authors in the body text. What could happen?
• Connector's number of mating cycles
• Repeats: Simpler at the cost of more redundant?

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 The Norwegian context

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Theoretical framework

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

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

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

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

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

2 Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1 Cumulative research process

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

3.1 Quantitative part (survey)

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

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

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

3.1.1 Challenges in supervision

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

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

3.1.2 Challenges in working from home

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

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

3.1.3 Factors PhD candidates need to complete their doctorate

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

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

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

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

3.1.4 Appreciation of supervision

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

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

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

3.1.5 What competencies supervisors need

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

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

3.1.6 Female academics with children

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

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

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

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

3.2.1 Analyzing the interview with Kyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Analyzing the interview with Sally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.3 Analyzing the interview with Gabbie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.4 Analyzing the interview with Henrik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.5 Analyzing the interview with Luna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.6 Analyzing the interview with Lydia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.7 Analyzing the interview with Michelle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.8 Analyzing the interview with Ollie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.9 Analyzing the interview with Tyler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.10.1 overview.

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

Main Themes Identified:

1. Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Progression:

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

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

2. Changes in Supervision Practices:

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

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

3. Work Environment and Work-Life Balance:

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

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

4. Professional Development and Academic Output:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Resilience and Innovation in Supervision:

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

2. Diverse Impacts on Different Research Types:

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

3. Underestimation of Emotional Challenges:

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

4. Lack of Institutional Support:

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

5. The Positive Impact of Forced Adaptation:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Adaptation to Digital Tools and Platforms:

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

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

2. Ethical and Practical Concerns with Digital Supervision:

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

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

3. Impact of the Pandemic on Supervisory Practices:

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

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

4. Institutional Support and Professional Development:

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

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

5. Preparedness of PhD Candidates:

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

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

6. Valuation of Supervision:

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

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

7. Suggestions for Institutional Changes:

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

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

3.2.12 Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Limitations and future research

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

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

5 Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author note

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

Data availability statement

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

Author contributions

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Conflict of interest

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

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

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary material

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

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

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

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wollenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., and Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 44–45, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.003

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research . 3rd Edn: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Keywords: PhD-supervisors, experiences, COVID-19, supervision, PhD-fellows, frame factors

Citation: Krumsvik RJ, Røkenes FM, Skaar &O, Jones L, Solstad SH, Salhus & and Høydal KL (2024) PhD-supervisors experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study. Front. Educ . 9:1436521. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1436521

Received: 22 May 2024; Accepted: 15 July 2024; Published: 09 August 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Krumsvik, Røkenes, Skaar, Jones, Solstad, Salhus and Høydal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Rune J. Krumsvik, [email protected]

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

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit dedicated to PhDs.

How to do when your supervisor does not really care?

I think that, to some extent, many of us has faced this issue. I am in my last year of my phd studies and over the three years I was under some degree of stress.

Often, my supervisor won’t answer my e-mails, texts or phone calls. Of course, I continue my research, and after adding 30-50 more pages, I get a feedback.

It does not seems fair to me. Anyway, I am almost done, but most of my guidance came from another supervisors.

How should I act? I do not want to be rude, bur why is called supervision when it is not?

Any similar experiences?

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

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

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

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

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

Reset your password

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

Check your inbox

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

Choose a Reddit account to continue

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Junior researchers ‘cited more if PhD supervisor is well known’

Success of those mentored by highly regarded scholars suggests ‘chaperone effect’ is increasingly important, finds study.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Early career researchers are much more likely to see their work cited if their PhD supervisors are well-known academics, according to a major study that suggests scholarly success is increasingly dependent on the status of one’s mentor.

In a paper published in the Royal Society journal  Interface  on 14 August, researchers survey the “academic genealogy” of more than 300,000 academics who published nearly 10 million papers to work out if the PhD graduates of highly cited authors are more widely cited than those whose mentors had a lower academic reputation – a phenomenon that has often been attributed to the “chaperone effect”.

A positive correlation – which the paper labelled the “academic Great Gatsby Curve” in reference to the term used in social sciences to describe the persistence of intergenerational income inequality – was observed in nearly all 22 disciplines analysed but was strongest in philosophy, mathematics and linguistics.

Political science, computing and anthropology also have high levels of “impact inequality”, states the paper, with the “most egalitarian citation distribution” found in experimental psychology, microbiology and evolutionary biology.

The “impact persistence” between PhD mentors and mentees was slightly higher if the supervisor was female, the researchers note, suggesting that this is “possibly owing to female mentors having a lasting positive impact on mentees or providing career development facilitation to a larger extent than male mentors”.

On the growing importance of having a well-known “academic parent”, the study suggests that “academia has become less open and more stratified over time, as newer protégé cohorts are characterised by lower intergenerational mobility than their predecessors”.

While the paper, which examines whether the citations gained by scholars in the five years after their PhD aligned with the citation profile of supervisors, accepts that “more successful mentors may have the privilege of being more selective in their choice of mentees, and vice versa, leading to a positive correlation between their impact”, it also argues that PhD students of well-known scholars are able to benefit from more networking opportunities.

“The transfer of academic status is instead grounded upon the inheritance of intangibles such as knowledge and visibility,” it says.

Given how “academic impact – as quantified by citations – is to some extent inherited”, the authors advise that “citation-based bibliometric indicators should be handled with care when used to assess the performance of academics”.

[email protected]

Register to continue

Why register?

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

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

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

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Obsession with elites won’t fix inequality

Addressing extreme social stratification is a responsibility of all universities. But focusing excessively on action at the top of the pile is a mistake

Embed impact in PhD training from day one, says UCL doctoral head

Head of UK’s biggest PhD school says promoting impact in doctoral studies would make students more employable and research more visible

PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

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

How ‘will you be my supervisor’ emails control entry to PhD study

Late responses to PhD applicant enquiries and lack of signposting might contribute to poor ethnic minority representation at doctoral level, researchers say

Related universities

You might also like.

UK research’s islands of excellence need flood defences

As a loss-maker, research is under pressure as fears of insolvency rise. But universities must do all they can to shore up a key element of their impact 

Will the funding crisis confine UK research to elite universities?

At a time of increasing financial constraint, jobs are being shed even in UK departments that ride high in the Research Excellence Framework, while time allocations for research are being cut. Can a loss-making activity like research survive outside traditional institutions, asks Jack Grove 

Average master’s fee higher than postgraduate loan for first time

While value of government-backed loan has increased by 21 per cent since 2017-18, average fees have soared by 43 per cent

Peer review will only do its job if referees are named and rated

We need a mechanism whereby academics can build a public reputation as referees and receive career benefits for doing so, says Randy Robertson

Featured jobs