phd student advisor relationship

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

Cybersecurity Specialist, Australian BioCommons

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

• Career Advice

COVID-19 Is Making Us Rethink Everything

By  Raechele L. Pope

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

Istockphoto.com/sorbetto

With apologies to Stanley Kubrick, I initially wanted to title these thoughts Dr. Pandemic or: How I Learned to Start Worrying and Effectively Advise My Ph.D. Students . For those unfamiliar with the reference, in 1964, Kubrick directed and produced a gallows-humor comedy, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb , that satirized the Cold War fears and possibilities of nuclear conflict between the then Soviet Union and the United States. Many people consider the film to be one of the greatest comedies ever written, and it is one of the highest-rated movies on Rotten Tomatoes.

To be clear, I don’t think anything about this pandemic is funny. Nor am I attempting to make connections between nuclear annihilation and the entire globe dealing with COVID-19. Instead, on a much more basic level, I am struck by how simply viewing Dr. Strangelove in 1964 and decades later influenced audience perceptions of the rationality and viability of war. It made people rethink what they thought they knew about conflict, conflict escalation and nuclear anxiety. I can’t help but find parallels in how COVID-19 is making me rethink everything I thought I knew about our work environment, processes, tasks and responsibilities.

Although the scope and depth with which COVID-19 has affected us and the work we do is still unfolding, I do know right now that it is making me deeply rethink everything, including our roles and responsibilities as faculty members. That even includes some tasks or responsibilities that don’t require a new skill set -- like teaching online did for some of us. Advising Ph.D. students during COVID-19 is one of those areas that we need to rethink.

Doctoral advisement -- specifically the working relationship between doctoral adviser and student -- is one of the key conditions for optimal doctoral degree completion. In fact, according to both doctoral students and their advisers , this relationship is of the utmost importance for student success. The relationship is obviously anchored in doctoral education, which is unlike any other academic experience students have had before and requires significant intellectual rigor, psychological flexibility, well-developed writing ability and independent research competence. This is true in even the best of times, but what we are all experiencing during this pandemic is magnifying this reality tenfold.

Within this important relationship, most doctoral students work independently because their advisers view them as high achieving, skilled and high functioning. Many advisers take a hands-off approach and rarely get involved in how students work, manage their time, or integrate their work and personal lives. Yet research has found that a vast majority of doctoral students have had significant difficulty with time management and balancing family life and other obligations and could use more guidance, direction and support.

Again, these are not typical times, and during this pandemic, doctoral students are also facing many of the same challenges that faculty members are struggling with, such as Zoom overload, childcare and homeschooling responsibilities, isolation, anxiety, health fears, difficulty maintaining a schedule, and low research productivity. They are also confronting their own distinct challenges, including funding insecurities, job prospect anxieties and evaluation fears (including how their ability to cope in these times will be judged).

As advisers, the best way we can provide support for our doctoral students and ensure their success, particularly now, is to reimagine and rethink our roles and responsibilities. Prior assumptions and expectations, held by many advisers, that all doctoral students should be able to self-motivate and self-regulate will not give students the essential tools they need to succeed. Some people would suggest, and research supports them, that these assumptions were never true. In fact, a positive doctoral student-faculty relationship, based on support, active engagement and guidance, and effective communication are the necessary foundation for doctoral student success.

Below are eight key recommendations for creating and maintaining affirming and student-centered advising in uncertain times.

• Increase contact. Now more than ever, doctoral students need regular check-ins. Those check-ins need not be long, but they should be consistent and, in these times, initiated by the adviser. Doctoral students are often in a double bind -- they feel pressure to always be positive and competent and not show vulnerabilities regardless of how they actually feel. Just letting them know that they matter can make all the difference. It’s OK not to have a long agenda when you touch base with them. Just touch base. Isolation will lead to self-doubt about their progress and ability to finish, which is why checking in is so important.
• Ask questions. Gather information about the lives of your students. Ask about their well-being and that of their family. Find out what they are doing for self-care. Let them know you are invested in them as a person. If you ask how they are doing, 90 percent of the time they will say “fine,” even if they are not. Assume they will not automatically tell you if they are struggling, and ask more than once. It might build trust if you are willing to share your own challenges as a scholar during these unprecedented times. In addition, broaden the range of questions you typically ask. Find out more about the effectiveness of their workspace, their schedule and how they are managing their online learning, their research and, most important, their lives.
• Listen. Listen. Listen. When you ask questions, listen deeply for what they are not saying and how they may be engaged in performative sharing -- expressing what they think you want to hear. Follow up with additional questions. Show deep empathy, which means to acknowledge the feelings and experiences below the surface, those that are left unsaid. For example, if a student mentions that their living space is more crowded and hectic than usual, you might want to ask what personal and academic difficulties that overcrowding brings. Self-disclosing your own challenges is one way to increase their comfort in sharing their own.
• Provide structure and accountability. Providing appropriate structure and accountability can be a positive strategy for those students who have been unable to provide it for themselves. Ilda Jimenez y West and other scholars found that 60 percent of doctoral students were struggling with time management and finding balance. And that was in the best of times, so we can assume that is probably worse now. Work with your students to create structure and accountability measures. Having a direct and honest conversation with each doctoral advisee will ensure that both of you have an accurate understanding of reasonable expectations. For some students, your role may be to pump the brakes and help them set more realistic goals. For others, you may need to provide structure and guidance to help them meet the most basic expectations. For their growth and engagement to occur, it is essential to find a proper balance of challenge and support.
• Be flexible, understanding and humane. During these times, we have to understand that our students are balancing a lot. Help them set realistic goals and expectations. Be flexible when they are unable to meet those goals, and discuss with them how to remove obstacles. Chances are, they are already beating themselves up -- which is why we have to be the understanding and humane ones, giving them permission to engage in self-compassion. We are all experiencing grief and loss during this pandemic in ways that are not being recognized, understood and accepted.
• Expect and accept the ups and downs. I think we can all agree that productivity is fleeting. All of us have good times and bad times, productive days and lost days. That is our new reality, and the sooner we accept the ups and downs, the easier it will be to help our students deal with them. Managing expectations is key.
• Embrace the uncertain yet plan for the future. Our role as advisers is to continually acknowledge the unknown while also planning ahead. They are not mutually exclusive. To move forward, we plan and then replan as many times as necessary when our first plan does not work. Helping students accept that reality is a good place to start.
• Provide culturally competent advising. One size does not fit all. Unless we listen and truly understand the lived experiences of our students, we will not be able to grasp their specific contextual and cultural realities. While we are currently having a shared experience as a country, it is not impacting us in uniform ways. Disparities that were always there have now suddenly become more visible.

We cannot assume. Instead we need to learn which of our students may be facing structural and systemic challenges that are not always apparent. For example, while as faculty members our lives have been disrupted, our socioeconomic status offers us some protection. For many of our students and their families, their lives have been devastated, economically and/or personally. Now is the time for us as advisers to look beyond our own experiences and privileges and learn about the challenges and inequities many of our students confront.

Demand for Online Courses Surges, Creating Cultural Tensions

Annual survey of chief online learning officers finds students seek more virtual options; faculty push back on more w

Share This Article

More from career advice.

4 Ways to Reduce Higher Ed’s Leadership Deficit

Without good people-management skills, we’ll perpetuate the workforce instability and turnover on our campuses, warns

Shared Governance in Tumultuous Times

As the tradition is strongly tested, a faculty senate leader, Stephen J. Silvia, and a former provost, Scott A.

On the Road With College Students

Besides benefiting students, study abroad trips can be a powerful reminder of some of the best aspects of working at

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

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

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

Managing up: how to communicate effectively with your PhD adviser

• Lluís Saló-Salgado 0 ,
• Angi Acocella 1 ,
• Ignacio Arzuaga García 2 ,
• Souha El Mousadik 3 &
• Augustine Zvinavashe 4

Lluís Saló-Salgado is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Twitter: @lluis_salo.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Angi Acocella is a PhD candidate in the Center for Transportation & Logistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. LinkedIn: @angi-acocella.

Ignacio Arzuaga García is a PhD student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. LinkedIn: @ignacioarzuaga.

Souha El Mousadik is a PhD student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Augustine Zvinavashe is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

When you start a PhD, you also begin a professional relationship with your PhD adviser. This is an exciting moment: interacting with someone for whom you might well have great respect and admiration, but who might also slightly intimidate you.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03703-z

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

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Related Articles

Why you need an agenda for meetings with your principal investigator

• Research management

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

Why I’ve removed journal titles from the papers on my CV

Career Column 09 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

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor

Westlake Center for Genome Editing seeks exceptional scholars in the many areas.

Westlake Center for Genome Editing, Westlake University

Tenure-track Assistant Professor

Position Description Brain Immunology and Glia (BIG) Center at the Washington University School of Medicine invites applications for a tenure-track...

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University School of Medicine - St. Louis

Post Doctoral Associate Radiation Oncology

The Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, has an exciting opportunity for a Postdoctoral Associate.

Miami, Florida

University of Miami/UHealth System

Editor (Applied and Industrial Microbiology)

We’re seeking a biologist who has a critical eye, a deep understanding of their subject and interests beyond, and who can think on their feet.

London, Madrid or Pune (hybrid working)

Springer Nature Ltd

Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d)

Fachbereich Physik - Institut für Theoretische Physik AG Netz Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d) full-time job limited to 3 years (end of project...

14195, Berlin (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

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

Advising Guide: Building a successful relationship with your advisor

Conducting research meetings with your advisor, holding regular meetings, planning your agenda before the meeting, sample meeting agenda topics, taking notes, keeping a research notebook or journal, if you are co-advised, why have a co-advisor, allen school considerations for co-advising, additional planning if co-advised, joint or separate meetings.

Schedule regular meetings with your advisor (usually once per week) even if you think you have nothing to talk about, you haven’t made much progress, or you are worried that you will be wasting your advisor’s time. Often that is exactly when it is most important to have a meeting. Note that a meeting need not be long or even fill the allocated time slot. Everyone, including your advisor, is happy to suddenly have a few extra minutes if the meeting ends early.

Regular meetings will give you more ideas, connections, and resources to achieve your goals. It also keeps your advisor up-to-date on your progress and helps them keep your project in mind. Often when there isn’t much progress, a meeting is a time for your advisor to help you stay energized and excited about the project since they are likely to take the long view.

Set up a regular meeting time that works for you both every quarter since your schedules will likely change. Offer several possibilities to respect the other person’s needs and preferences. (Some advisors opt to use an on-demand calendar, where you can reserve free meeting slots. In this case, claim a slot every week.)

If your advisor needs to skip a meeting and you still need guidance, follow-up with them by email to discuss the issues or to reschedule the meeting.

Outside regular meetings, you and your advisor should establish norms for asynchronous communication (e.g., email and slack). Sometimes a quick exchange with your advisor between meetings can save you a lot of time. Don’t hesitate to reach out.

Consider preparing a weekly progress report and sending it to your advisor before your meetings. This will help you make the most of your time together. It also forces you to review your work and think about its consequences, in addition to helping you and your advisor track your longer-term progress.

Write down an agenda and send it to your advisor in (sufficient) advance of the meeting; you could also bring two hardcopies to the meeting. Some students use a slide deck to guide the discussion. Prioritize the items on your agenda. Importantly, focus first on items that are most likely to help you make progress between the current and next meeting.

An agenda for a research meeting (depending on the research area and the specific individuals involved) may include any or all of the following items:

Recap of the goals and state of the project. Like you, your advisor is juggling numerous responsibilities and context switching constantly throughout the day. Don’t be upset if your advisor cannot remember what was discussed in your previous meeting. Over time, you’ll learn how to quickly recap events to stay on track.

An update on what you’ve accomplished since the previous meeting and which previous goals have been met. Include, for example, what code you’ve written, new results and ideas, experimental results, etc. Share graphs showing these results, if applicable. Be sure that you’ve already thought through what the results mean, why they make sense, and how they move the project forward. Getting new results up until the last minute does not leave you time to consider whether these results are meaningful or even correct.

Papers you have read or talks you have attended that are relevant to your research and what you learned from them. Teach your advisor something!

Problem-solving strategies. Brainstorm with your advisor about how to solve problems, discussing in detail whatever you are stuck on or don’t understand. Key advisor added value is helping you figure out a way forward when you are stuck. Be as specific as possible when explaining sticking points. Consider writing this part out for yourself ahead of the meeting. Sometimes even just articulating what you are stuck on can help you get past whatever is blocking you. In addition, don’t hesitate to ask for help with low-level details, such as code reviews or debugging help, and your advisor will let you know if they can or are willing to work at this level.

Gaps in your knowledge or advice on what you should be learning in the short and longer term. Your advisor can help you figure out how to fill those gaps by suggesting classes you should take, papers/books you should read, experts you should speak with, etc.

Feedback on progress . Take initiative in asking your advisor for feedback on your research progress. Be receptive and open to hearing constructive feedback, and remember not to take it personally. Try to see such input as a way to help you do the best possible work and achieve your maximum potential. Focus on asking and answering clarifying questions so that you can think through the validity/utility of the feedback more carefully after the meeting.

Longer-term goals. Discuss research questions and directions that you’d like to explore in the future.

At the end of the meeting, if appropriate, briefly communicate what you understand to be the takeaways and action items going forward.

List of goals you want to accomplish before the next meeting, as well as longer term goals. Let your advisor know about any class-related or personal obligations that will impact your productivity in the upcoming week.

It is essential to record what was discussed. Usually you will write brief notes during the meeting. Otherwise, do so immediately after the meeting, while your memory is fresh. Share the summary with your advisor and keep a copy for your notes. This ensures you are on the same page and understand one another. It is particularly useful when writing a paper about your research. It will also spur both your and your advisor’s memory for future work.

It is highly recommended that you keep a research notebook or journal . (This can be a physical notebook, a set of text files, or some other form.) Whenever an idea comes to you, while reading papers, talking with colleagues, or daydreaming, jot it down. It doesn’t have to be fully conceived or considered. Use the journal to record:

Meeting notes

Calculations you have done and lemmas/theorems you have proved

Short- and long-term goals and timelines

Lists of papers you need to read

Ideas for future research

Questions you want to resolve

Topics you need or want to learn

Relevant conference deadlines and submission plans

Co-advisors provide different perspectives, different personalities, and different strengths and weaknesses, giving you the opportunity to take the best from each. They can expand your personal networks in complementary ways. When doing interdisciplinary work, it can be especially useful to have advisors with different kinds of research expertise.

There is also a cost to having co-advisors. It may mean more meetings, or more trouble scheduling meetings. The advisors may each have their own requirements for what you need to achieve before you can graduate. In some cases they may offer contradictory advice. (Example: you present an idea to each advisor. One says, “Great idea. Before you proceed further, you should do some quick experiments to validate it, to avoid wasting time if it turns out to be a dead end..” The other says, “Great idea. Before you proceed further, you should work through a proof to make sure that it is sound, to avoid wasting time if it turns out to be a dead end.” In such a situation, you will want to have a discussion with both of them to figure out how to prioritize the two alternatives.

There are many ways to have a co-advisor, and one (or more!) can be added at any point during your Ph.D. Your co-advisors will be co-chairs of your doctoral committee. They may split your funding or there may be a primary and secondary advisor (with the primary often providing the funding). These are things you should feel free to discuss at the outset with both advisors.

To formalize a co-advisor use the advisor change form .

Many Allen School students are co-advised. As just stated, benefitting the most from having multiple advisors requires some additional planning on your part. While the exact setup of your co-advising relationship will be unique to you and the advisors, there are some common items to consider early on and then revisit periodically.

Know each advisor’s relative strengths, keeping in mind that you might need different kinds of help from them at different points. If one advisor funds you on the main project you’re working on, that may be a different type of advising relationship than you have with a co-advisor who provides expertise in a particular topic.

Ensure that both advisors are aware of what you are working on and what each of their colleague’s contributions to your work will be. This will help with allocating time, resources, and credit.

You and your co-advisors should decide whether to meet together or separately. There can be benefits to both approaches.

Meeting together helps keep the project status in sync but can result in long discussions between the advisors, rather than with you. (Occasionally these discussions are illuminating about life as a faculty member.)

If both advisors are present, you will need to proactively manage the meeting agenda to clarify what you want or need from the meeting.

Meeting separately might duplicate discussions, make it harder to sync up about next steps, or require more bridging communication on your part, but it can help you benefit directly from each advisor's unique expertise and working styles (if you have well chunked-out pieces of feedback that you need from both).

If you and your co-advisors decide on separate meetings, still plan on meeting as a group occasionally (at least once or twice a year). Always copy both advisors on all progress reports, meeting agendas, and meeting notes.

It is still important to follow specific guidelines for conducting effective meetings.

Check in regularly with your co-advisors to assess how co-advising is working and whether their combined perspectives are leading to more effective research.

How to get good advising: information about the grad student - advisor relationship

First Year | Building a Relationship | Rights and Responsibilities | Ongoing Conversations Troubleshooting | FAQ | Growth Mindset

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Tips to Maintain a Good Relationship With Your PhD Supervisor

The PhD student–supervisor relationship is quite possibly one of the most difficult relationships in academia. Regardless of the nature of the doctoral program, the role of a PhD supervisor usually switches between being your boss as well as mentor in the same workplace. Similarly, depending upon the situation, you may be required to act as a student/mentee as well as an employee at different points in your doctoral journey. These roles can be tricky to navigate as a young PhD student, especially if you haven’t been exposed to the hierarchical challenges of academia so far.

Focusing on learning and acquiring skills while maintaining a cordial professional relationship with your supervisor need not always be mutually exclusive. In fact, the type of PhD supervision you receive during your doctoral journey may directly or indirectly shape a lot of important decisions that you undertake in the future. Therefore, maintaining a good PhD student–supervisor relationship is paramount during your PhD. This article provides some useful tips to ease the process.

3 Tips to help students build a strong PhD supervisor relationship

1. Become familiar with their working style

There is no set way to determine what makes a good PhD supervisor as every supervisor has their own distinct style of working. Some may be comfortable letting students explore and experiment by themselves, preferring only to guide them whenever students need support. Some supervisors, on the other hand, like to be kept informed about the details of the project that their students are working on. Adapting to the working style of your supervisor may make it easier to manage their expectations as well as your expectations of PhD supervision on a daily basis. This will also form the basis of the PhD student-supervisor relationship.

If needed, talk to your colleagues to gain more insight into the work culture of your lab. One great tip to build your relationship with your supervisor if you are a student pursuing your PhD away from your home country is to familiarize yourself with the culture and language of the new country, since cultural nuances often seep into workplace communication and influence working styles, including PhD student-supervisor relationships.

2. Keep the communication lines open

A lot of misunderstandings in the PhD supervisor relationship, especially during the initial stages of the doctoral journey can be avoided by ensuring clear communication with your supervisor. Young PhD students are naturally quite apprehensive about putting across their views for fear of being assessed negatively, but this may in fact pose problems in the long run when it comes to forging a strong supervisor-PhD student relationship. If there are some aspects of the work culture of your lab or the working style of your supervisor that you are not comfortable with, it may be a good idea to discuss this openly. You can also seek advice from your colleagues about the best possible ways to approach your supervisor, and adapt your conversations accordingly.

If the role of your supervisor keeps them busy and unavailable for an extended period, it is advisable to bring this up with them and seek regular appointments for clarifying any pertinent issues related to your PhD project, thus, avoiding any long-term repercussions. Open communication is key to having a healthy PhD student–supervisor relationship as well as to ensuring the success of your PhD project.

3. Discuss your goals and aspirations

One of the key aspects of healthy communication in the PhD student-supervisor relationship is the ability to have a detailed discussion about your goals and aspirations. Even if the goals are as short term as wanting to gain expertise in a new technique or setting up an external collaboration for an ongoing project, it is important to engage in timely discussions about these goals. The PhD supervisor relationship is only going to get better if you discuss your aspirations openly.

Whenever your supervisor is willing to actively switch from the role of a supervisor and mentor you regarding non-PhD related matters, see it as a great opportunity to learn from their rich experience and use their learnings to make conscious choices in your own career path. It will also help your supervisor gain an insight into your thought process and help them make an informed assessment about your abilities. Such discussions help in strengthening the PhD student-supervisor relationship and foster a bond that has the potential to grow beyond your doctoral journey.

PhD is a bumpy ride with unpredictable twists and turns, but maintaining a healthy supervisor-PhD student relationship surely helps in transforming the ride into a memorable one.

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

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

Related Posts

What are Experimental Groups in Research

Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="phd student advisor relationship"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Advising guide for professional students.

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

Advisors and Program Directors in Professional Degree Programs

All professional degree students must have an advisor. In some fields, this person may be the program director, who is responsible for general oversight of the program, including admissions, curriculum development, degree requirements, and student progress toward degree completion. In other fields, students may have a faculty advisor who works closely with the program director.

Professional degree programs are course-based. Satisfactory progress to the degree depends on completion of required and elective courses while maintaining at least the minimum grade point average (GPA) specified by the field.

Professional degree program requirements are defined by faculty in each field. These requirements, as well as the length of time allowed to complete them, vary by field, so the advisor has an essential role in helping their students identify and meet all requirements for the degree. 

Difference between an Advisor and a Mentor

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

Advisor Responsibilities

• Guides you in meeting the requirements and expectations for your degree
• Required coursework
• Exams required by the graduate field 
• Fieldwork, internship, or other capstone experience
• Writes informed letters of recommendation for your job applications

Mentor Responsibilities

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

Finding an Advisor

When do i select my first advisor.

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

Your faculty advisor may be assigned prior to your arrival or you may select an advisor during your first semester. 

Either way, it’s important to start your graduate study with clear expectations and thoughtful communication about your plans for an effective advising relationship and success in graduate school.

How do I find an advisor? 

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

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

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

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

Possible Questions

• How often do you meet with your students?
• What are your expectations for students related to professional development and networking, such as attending conferences or making presentations?
• How soon should I identify a fieldwork or internship site or project for my capstone experience, if required?
• How do you describe the degree of guidance and supervision you provide? At what point do you expect your students to begin to work more independently?  
• Do you have a statement of advising you can share that lists our respective responsibilities and clarifies mutual expectations?
• What’s your advice on how students can manage what they find to be the biggest challenges in their graduate program?

Getting Other Mentoring Needs Met

How do i find other mentor(s) .

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

Consider identifying and cultivating additional mentors if that is the case. No one mentor can meet all of your needs. 

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

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

Maximizing the Advising Relationship

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

Suggestions for Building a Successful Advising Relationship

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

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

Making Use of Meetings

First meetings.

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

Questions to ask about expectations

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

Draft Academic Plan

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

Contents of the plan

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

Subsequent Meetings

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

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

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

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

Meeting Frequency

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

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

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

There will be disciplinary differences in meeting frequency.

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

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

Resolving Conflict

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

You have options, however, including:

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

Changing Advisors

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

Typical reasons to seek a new advisor include:

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

If you are considering changing advisors:

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

Challenges and Potential Solutions

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

Challenge: Mismatch in communication needs or style

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

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

Challenge: Advisor unavailable or away

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

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

Challenge: Misaligned expectations

You are ready to submit a paper or project. Your advisor says it needs much more work. Or you begin your job search, applying for jobs in government or the non-profit sector, but your advisor insists that you should apply for industry jobs or graduate school instead.

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

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

Funding for Professional Master’s Students

• The funding available from Cornell, if any, will be described in your offer of admission letter.
• You can explore supplemental funding options on the Experience Cornell website .
• You should take stock of the total program cost and develop a realistic plan for funding your education in advance to minimize the risk of depleting funds midway through. If you do find yourself in a position where you can’t afford to continue it may be helpful to speak with your advisor about taking a leave while saving up or seeking external funding options or loans.
• In very rare cases, professional students may be given the opportunity to serve as a TA and receive both a stipend and tuition credit (but this is not common.)
• Of course, it’s always important to carefully consider the value of your education relative to your career plans. Avoid taking on debt that will be disproportionate to the salary projections in your chosen career field.

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

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

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

External Resources

• University of Michigan Rackham, How to Get the Mentoring You Want  
• Laura Gail Lunsford & Vicki L. Baker, 2016, Great Mentoring in Graduate School: A Quick Start Guide for Protégés
• Michigan State University, Guidelines for Graduate Student Advising and Mentoring Relationships  
• Michigan State University, Graduate Student Career and Professional Development  

Template for Meeting Notes

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

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Graduate International Connection Program

How to Maintain an Effective Relationship with Your Advisor

October 17, 2019 by yeku1

Written by Sasha Vyatskikh

After months and months of preparation, writing countless statements of purpose, passing the exams and waiting for a decision, you finally receive the good news. You’re in! You’re going to be a graduate student at UCI.

One of the most important relationships you’ll develop in your PhD program is a relationship with your advisor. This person will hold the key to your degree. This person will hood you when you graduate. This person will vouch for you when you’re looking for a job.

How do you go about picking the right advisor? And how do you maintain a good working relationship with your PI throughout your program? In this post, I’ll try to help you answer these questions.

Before you commit

Many graduate programs at UCI will allow first year students to take some time before picking their advisor. Make sure you use this time effectively and make an informed decision. Your success as a graduate student largely depends on your advisor, and you should take great care when choosing your PI. Here is some advice based on my own experiences, as well as experiences of my peers here at UCI.

Rotate: Many departments at UCI offer incoming PhD students an opportunity to go through a few (usually two to three) rotations. While it might look like a waste of time – after all, during rotations you are not doing your thesis research, -rotations are a unique mechanism to help you find the best possible group to work in. Rotations offer you a glimpse inside the inner workings of the lab. Not only will you be able to participate in the actual research projects, but you will also attend the group meetings and social events. Sometimes, rotations get the students interested in topics they have never thought about!

Do your homework: Make sure you learn as much as you can about your future PI. Take advantage of being on campus, and take your future PI’s students and postdocs out for a cup of coffee. Ask them the tough questions. Here are some questions to get you started:

• How long does it typically take to graduate?
• Where do graduates in this lab end up working?
• What do you like about the group?
• What don’t you like about the group? (This is my favorite!)
• Do people ever leave the group to finish their degree with someone else
• Are the students funded by the professor’s grants or do they have to TA?
• How many papers are typically published by each student before graduation?
• How often do you attend conferences?

Listen to what they have to say, and take note. Compare their answers to your expectations and professional goals.

Another important thing to consider is the career stage of your potential advisor. An early career assistant professor might be willing to be more hands-on, while mid-career faculty are often well established within their field. Some advisors travel a lot, and spend very little time here in Irvine. What would be a good match for your personality and working style?

Check the alignment: Meet with your future advisor one-on-one and ask where their graduates end up working. Does the majority end up in academia or industry? How does this align with your own professional goals?

If you want to eventually become a professor, you might want to look for an advisor who is more famous within your field, and has a record of graduates successfully pursuing academic careers. You also need to make sure the professor and his research group are publishing actively and in higher impact journals.

If you are thinking about going into industry, you might want to look for an advisor with strong industry connections (for example, research funded by a company).  

After you match with an advisor

Just like any other relationship, your relationship with your advisor needs work. Make sure that you are a good student and a good employee, and that your work is up to the group’s standards. Below you’ll find some general tips on how to develop a productive working relationship with your PI.

Accountability: In my opinion, one of the most important things to work on is accountability. Make sure your advisor knows what you’re up to. If your advisor doesn’t have regularly scheduled group or individual meetings, take initiative! Email them your progress report weekly or biweekly. A progress report can be a simple bullet point list of the things you’ve been doing, followed by your plan for the next couple of weeks. This will help you stay on top of your work and will show your advisor that you’re committed to doing your job.

Plan ahead: Sometimes the life of a graduate student is just too much . Avoid burn out by planning ahead and sticking to your plan. A great tool for short- and long-term planning is the Individual Development Plan . Work on it in consultation with your advisor, and refine it as you move forward in your program. This will help both of you track your progress, and make sure that you’re getting closer to graduation.

Stay on top of your academics: While most professors won’t care too much about your graduate GPA, failing classes or exams definitely won’t help your research. Stay on top of your academic milestones and try to complete all the requirements on time. If you’ve failed a class or an exam, make sure to let your professor know (you don’t really want them to find out from someone else!).  

Money, money, money: Even if you’re funded by a grant, you might still benefit from pursuing additional funding. Your advisor will appreciate you taking an initiative and applying for fellowships. Moreover, a prestigious fellowship looks great on your CV! Consider applying for UCI campus fellowships, as well as for popular national fellowships.

Be vocal: Don’t assume that your PI can read your mind. If you’re having troubles, need advice, or want to ask for resources – speak up! You advisor can’t help you if they don’t know that you’re struggling. Ask for resources and support whenever you need them.  

Two heads are better than one: Start thinking about your thesis committee early on in your program. Identify around three to five faculty members in your department who could potentially serve on your committee. Reach out and schedule meetings with them. Share what you’ve been up to in your research and professional development. Don’t be afraid to ask them for advice.

If things go south: Not all relationships are successful. If you feel like you’re having troubles with your advisor, reach out! Talk about it with your peers and mentors. Seek advice from the Graduate Division staff – for example, Dr. Phong Luong. If the things are just not working out, you might need to consider looking for a new advisor. Don’t be afraid – this happens all the time!

Useful Resources and Communities

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GradSchool/

https://forum.thegradcafe.com

https://www.nature.com/careers

https://www.chronicle.com

https://www.insidehighered.com

Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student’s Guide to Earning an M.A. or a Ph.D. by Robert Peters

https://edgeforscholars.org

Reader Interactions

Uc irvine graduate division.

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

10 ingredients for a successful supervisor/PhD student relationship

6 August 2019

A professor shares his recipe for building a thriving relationship with his PhD researchers – and why it’s not like it used to be

Dr. José M. Torralba has supervised 28 PhD theses and 90 diploma theses as Professor of Materials Science Engineering at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Here, he suggests ways to build a healthy professor/PhD student relationship — and with that, a healthy research group.

A good relationship is the basis for a good performance in science and a way to promote collaboration and the success of all the members in a research group. At the core of all the labs relationships is the professor/student relationship. If this works properly, it can be the seed for the whole lab relationship.

Yet, as higher education has transformed over the decades, so have traditional relationships in academia – some more effectively than others.

Dr. José M. Torralba, PhD, in his lab at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, where he is Professor of Materials Science and Engineering.

In most disciplines, the supervisor/PhD student relationship is established through the bonding process that occurs during the development of a doctoral thesis, where the student is supposed to be guided by the professor. This relationship, during a specific and limited period of time, can generate links that endure over the time, far beyond an employment relationship that is established for the fulfillment of the objectives of a project.

Decades ago, this relationship was based on the authority of the master over the disciple. The professor/student relationship was a sort of dictatorship where the student had to follow any small desire or suggestion of the professor. The professor was a superhuman that possessed all the knowledge and wisdom, and the student was obliged do what the professor said without any doubt or discussion.

This does not happen today, at least not in most of the advanced research centers. Previously, the authority of the professor was based on their supposed possession of all the knowledge and the nearly absolute dependence of the student on the decisions of the professor. Now, we live in a society where access to knowledge is almost unlimited, and the professor's preponderance over the student is based fundamentally on experience more than access to knowledge.

Also, whereas the student’s success used to require obedience and unwavering loyalty to the professor, the modern student has no need for such dependence. This has been lost in an open world, in the entire global village. Today, students have a contract and labor rights, so their survival does not depend on the whim or arbitrariness of a professor.

Apart of this, when a professor/student relationship begins, there is a need to combine two wills, each with their circumstances, to achieve a single objective. This objective is usually linked to a research project and usually leads to a doctoral thesis. Years ago, this was usually just a manuscript.

But today, the thesis is not enough; we must add on to it. From this professor-student relationship, other fruits grow, such as articles in journals, conference papers, patents, and collaborations with other research groups, some of them abroad.  PhD students in my research group have gone on to work at research centers in the Netherlands, Italy, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and the United States as well as in other parts of Spain.

Fortunately, there are modern tools and platforms that can connect researchers and help them track the progress and impact of their work.

Tools you can use for research and collaboration

Normally in this relationship, the seed of the idea for a research topic comes from the professor. The professor introduces the idea to the student and provides all the necessary means for growth: laboratories, libraries, consumable material, trips (if necessary). It is the student who takes the shovel to nurture the seed with soil, water it and monitor its growth. The professor must also watch that everything goes well so the tree can grow. If problems arise, such as a plague, hail or drought, the professor must provide solutions and the means to reach them advised or helped by the student, of course, who cares directly for the tree and probably knows it better than the professor. But the main responsibility to find solutions belongs to the professor.

When time has passed and the fruits appear, they will be the fruits of both of them. Both are responsible for the final product, and both will benefit (or experience harm) from what has been achieved.

For this relationship to function well, there must be rules, which will ensure this co-responsibility becomes an eternal and enduring positive relationship over the time. When a student believes that their thesis is good or bad because of the professor, or vice versa, it is because the norms for the professor/student coexistence have not been followed.

These are the ingredients for the recipe for a healthy and fruitful relationship:

1. A relationship between equals.  The professor, from the first day, should establish a personal relationship of mutual respect, equal to equal. The student will respect the professor (who is usually is wiser and older) but starting from the reality that it is a relationship between equals. Mutual respect must be the basis for the relationship.

2. Inspiration and creation of ideas.  The professor should be a source of inspiration and creation of ideas. But also, the student will endeavor to learn the state of art that allows him or her to propose alternative ways in the creative process. The student must generate, from the beginning, ideas that enrich the work.

It is normal for ideas to come from the professor. Usually, when the first contact is established, the professor has a running research line established, often with funding allocated to the project. But the idea must be taken by the student as their own, and the student must strive to expand the possibilities of the work thorough their own input.

3. Means.  The professor must provide the student with all the necessary means to carry out their work, including a decent salary. At the same time, the student will make every effort to make the work evolve to achieve the objectives set by the professor, and to take advantage of everything that has been put in their hands.

In former times, where a research activity often progressed thanks to the goodwill of the participants, who had to overcome what seemed like an obstacle course where even the tools to be used were not provided, is a nonsense today. Any research endeavor should ensure the basic resources in order to be developed with enough guarantees for success. The times where PhD work is done under the principle of generosity have passed. There must be enough funding to allow the research to progress, and the focus of the student should be the development of their creative work.

4. Progress of the work.  The professor must monitor the progress of the student's work at all times. The student must help the professor find solutions to the seemingly unresolvable problems that will surely come up along the way.

The times where the professor does not “give audience” to the student, waiting on their “throne hall” for the “vassal,” are long gone. In today’s research environment, if a professor does not have time to supervise PhD students properly, the supervising activity must be redefined. Also, the student must put all effort and energy in trying to solve the problems by themselves before discussing it with the professor.

5. Cooperation.  The professor will become the first ally (partner, associate) of the student in the performance of the work. And the student must go to the professor whenever there is any problem or contingency related to the work along the way. The basis for the cooperation is communication. It is quite normal that students try not to disturb the professor, even though most of the time, the professor could solve the problem faster than any other person. Both professor and student must consider the work relationship as teamwork.

6. Encouragement.  The professor should always encourage the student (in the best positive attitude), especially in those moments when things do not go as expected.

There are many disasters that can occur during PhD work. I have heard (even by myself!) phases like: “I am going to leave the thesis.” “This is my last day – I can’t stand this!” In these moments, the supervisor must be the first person to encourage the student to keep going, to maintain high spirits and help revive the interest and enthusiasm to continue with the work. A supervisor must be the student’s a coach, not only in the academic sense. When things go wrong, the student often thinks their problems bother the professor; that’s not true in most cases, and the professor is the first and the best advisor for the student.

7. Discrepancies management.  The student will discuss with the professor any possible discrepancy of criteria that may arise in the development of the work. The student will comply with the decisions of the professor, decisions that will be the result of a prior discussion.

When discrepancies appear, the best way to reach an agreement is discussion, discussion and discussion, and then reaching an agreement. Sometimes, discrepancies appear because someone fails: the professor in the guidance or the student in the execution. In those cases, before starting the discussion the first step should be communication, trying to explain what’s happened.

Failure to comply with this rule will generate a great mutual distrust that can end with a mutual hostile attitude that can, in turn, make the project fail.

8. Knowledge transfer.  The student must be aware that having accepted the supervision of the professor, he becomes an essential link in the propagation of the knowledge previously accumulated by the professor. The professor will try to put all their effort in giving international relevance to the work of the student, which is also is the professor's work.

In the today’s society, knowledge transfer is more important than ever, so both professor and student must assume that one of the main objectives in their research work is to promote, as much as possible, the transfer of the generated knowledge to the society. This can be done through scientific papers, patents, spin-offs – and scientific divulgation today is a must. This task, easier now thanks to social networks. Even when using social media for self-interest purposes, scientists that have high impact in social networks are cited more in academic metrics, according to a  2016 study opens in new tab/window  in PLOS One.

In this effort to disseminate the knowledge, the student plays an important role as the main link between the professor and future students.

9. Professional projection.  The professor should be aware that no matter how much he or she gives to the student, that student is putting into the hands of the professor several years of their life, in their moment of more physical and intellectual splendor. The professor will seek the greatest professional projection he or she can provide to the student.

The better the future of the student, the better the future of both of them. One well promoted student is the best way for the professor to assure future scientific networks, future collaboration and future projects. Today’s students must be future partners. To promote your students is actually a way to promote yourself.

10. Relationship forever.  The professor, from the moment he or she accepts the student, must be their mentor forever. And the student must expect and ask for advice and help from the professor for the development of their later professional career.

If both are intelligent people (which is supposed), they will try to maintain, forever, this mentor/mentored relationship. With time, the student could even play the mentor role with their former professor. Both of them will grow personally and professionally, and this will allow them to help each other. If the relationship is an equal relationship from the beginning, with the passing of the years, it will be much even more egalitarian, if it is possible. This kind of relationship could promote connections as strong father/mother and son or daughter. And this could be one of the best ways to enrich the personal lives of both.

If professor and student both comply with these simple rules, it will be difficult for them not to complete the work successfully and build a relationship that endures well beyond the duration of that first project.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Assistant Prof.  Sophia Tsipas opens in new tab/window  for her help in revising this text. She wasn´t my PhD student, but she could have been.

Prof. Torralba’s research group uses a variety of platforms to find out about the latest related research, manage their research and connect with researchers around the world. The most used are Elsevier’s  ScienceDirect  and  Scopus  as well as  Web of Science opens in new tab/window  and  Google Scholar opens in new tab/window . To manage citations, they use Elsevier’s  Mendeley  in addition to  EndNote opens in new tab/window  and  Zotero opens in new tab/window .

They also track the impact of their research in non-traditional ways. One tool to do that is Elsevier’s  Plum Analytics opens in new tab/window , which provides insights into how people are interacting with research online – for example, on social media and in the news. Elsevier has integrated Plum Analytics into ScienceDirect, Scopus and other research platforms.

How Relationships Can Impact Experiences in Graduate School

If I asked you to name what has helped you succeed in school, you might first think of the things that you are in control of. That would be totally understandable, as your academic performance can be greatly impacted by things like showing up for class, doing your work on time, and utilizing effective study habits. Other things like how much you sleep and what you eat can also impact your overall well-being and performance. These are the things that we often sit at the driver’s wheel of.

Did social support also come to mind for you? While it may or may not have, social relationships can greatly impact our mood and our ability to function. Researchers have studied the term ‘emotional contagion’ for decades, noting how much and how often we take cues from others’ behavior and how they can affect our own thoughts and emotions (Herrando & Constantinides, 2021). In other words, who you’re around may impact how you feel and what you do.

In academia, graduate students have noted a relationship between social support and reduced levels of stress, which in turn positively impacted their mental and physical health (Goplerud, 1980). Take a moment to think about who you have around you. Are they adding to your stress or helping to lift some of it off you? This is not to suggest that your social circle is responsible for absolving you of all your school-related stress, but hopefully, they aren’t piling more on.

Let’s look at three big relationship categories and how they might impact you:

Advisory Relationships

In graduate school, your relationship with an advisor can be key. When I look back on my experiences throughout academia, I have so much to thank my own advisors for—especially as a first-generation student. Note that an advisor can be one formally assigned to you by the school but can also be a professor, faculty, or staff who you develop a positive academic relationship with and has wisdom to share with you. A positive relationship with an advisor can provide both practical career direction and socioemotional benefits (Tenenbaum & Crosby, 2001). Both of these domains can help to promote a sense of belonging and also student success. So think about whether you’ve reached out to your advisor(s) as needed or if perhaps a change in advisor might serve you better. When navigating the complexities of graduate school, it can be so helpful to have a more experienced person in your corner.

Peer Mentors

Peer mentors are similar to advisors in that they have more experience than you but have the benefit of being in your program, so their experience is recent and specific to your school system. In a systematic review that looked at forty-seven graduate student peer mentorship programs, researchers noted significant benefits for students in their academic, social, psychological, and career spheres (Lorenzetti et al., 2019). Your school may or may not have a formal peer mentorship program. If they do, wonderful! It’d be worth looking into to see if you can receive support from a more senior student. You might even want to be that person for incoming students. If your school doesn’t have one readily available, you can either be involved in the process of launching one yourself or you can reach out to other students who are further along in the program and inquire if it’d be okay if you asked them a few questions about their experiences in the program. Again, I don’t know where I’d be without the students who came before me sharing what they learned with me. It definitely helped reduce a lot of my stress when I felt like I didn’t know what I was getting into.

Personal Relationships

Lastly, let’s talk about the relationships that aren’t involved directly in your academics. These are our family, friends, romantic partners, and others whose relationship to us isn’t primarily or mostly academic. While they might not always overlap, they are certainly related. For example, researchers have found a significant positive relationship between positive social connection with on-campus friends and six-year graduation rates (Bronkema & Bowman, 2017). Your friends can play a big role in pushing you to succeed and even finishing your degree! Even off-campus relationships matter. Think about who you surround yourself with on a daily basis. What kinds of things do they say about school? About you? When you think about them, does it spark anxiety or a sense of love, connection, and support? We need people who will walk alongside us and encourage us along the way.

I invite you today to take some time to think about your social circle across these levels of connection. Are there boundaries you need to set or even people you should reach out to who help you feel like your best self? Who we surround ourselves with impacts how we see ourselves, so take some time to think about how that applies to your graduate journey today.

• Bronkema, R. H., & Bowman, N. A. (2017). Close campus friendships and college student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice , 21 (3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117704200  
• Goplerud, E. N. (1980). Social support and stress during the first year of graduate school. Professional Psychology, 11, 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.11.2.283
• Herrando, C., & Constantinides, E. (2021). Emotional contagion: A brief overview and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712606  
• Lorenzetti, D. L., Shipton, L., Nowell, L., Jacobsen, M., Lorenzetti, L., Clancy, T., & Paolucci, E. O. (2019). A systematic review of Graduate Student Peer Mentorship In Academia. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning , 27 (5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2019.1686694  
• Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 59 (3), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1804

Related News

10 Research-Based Industrial / Organizational Psychology Strategies to Boost Motivation and Performance

Rest and Self-Care in Graduate School

Harmonizing Health: The Interplay Between Music Therapy and Human-Animal Interactions

Understanding the Dynamics of the PhD-Advisor Relationship

The journey towards earning a PhD is both academically challenging and personally enriching. Along this journey, one of the most crucial relationships a student develops is with their PhD advisor. This article aims to shed light on the dynamics of the PhD-advisor relationship, offering key insights for students.

An advisor plays an integral role in shaping the academic trajectory of a PhD student. But, what exactly is the role of PhD advisors ? To help you understand, we provide insider information that elucidates the advisor’s role and the expectations placed on both the student and the advisor.

A common question PhD candidates might have is, “How many PhD students can a professor take?” This depends on various factors, including the professor’s capacity and the institution’s regulations. Get detailed insights on how many PhD students a professor can take , and understand how this influences the supervision quality.

The relationship between a PhD student and a professor extends beyond just formal guidance. With time, it evolves, and there’s a lot to learn from this dynamic. Get a first-hand account from a PhD student-turned-professor , sharing experiences and perspectives on the journey from being a student to becoming an academic guide.

The PhD-advisor relationship is a pivotal aspect of your academic journey. By understanding its dynamics and intricacies, you can foster a more productive, beneficial relationship that contributes positively to your research experience and academic growth.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

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.

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

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

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

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

Browse PhDs Now

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

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

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

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

Join Thousands of Students

IndiaBioscience

Columns phd cafe, do’s and don’ts for a healthy student-advisor relationship.

Parul Anup recently completed her PhD from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai . In this next article in our PhD Café series, she talks about the expectations that graduate students and Principal Investigators (PIs) have from each other, and how keeping these in mind can help in building a healthy mentor-mentee relationship.

Most relationships have unexpressed underlying expectations which, if unfulfilled, can give rise to frustration, resentment, and misunderstanding between the people involved. Such expectations are prevalent in both personal and professional relationships and an inability to fulfil them could be harmful, particularly in professional scenarios. This is because personal relationships often have a lot of room for acceptance, compromises, and freedom to overcome such issues, which may be missing from professional relationships.

A few years back, my department took a novel initiative by bringing all the graduate students and thesis advisors together in the same room to address these underlying unsaid expectations on an open platform. The plan was to break these expectations down and discuss their importance and feasibility for both advisors and students. 

Looking back, I think it was a great initiative. The points discussed in that meeting were very helpful for both students and advisors. In my own experience, realization of those expectations as a student has helped me significantly in developing a healthy relationship with my thesis advisor as well as my thesis committee members. Some of the advisors present at the meeting have also expressed that the discussion helped them gain useful insights into students’ expectations that they can work upon. 

I am penning down some of the points emerging out of that meeting here, in the hope that other students, and perhaps advisors, see the value of such open discussions. 

What do advisors expect from their students?

The first point I realized was that most advisors expect their students to take responsibility for their research projects . Trust me, nothing puts them more at ease than a student taking full responsibility for the project, which includes being consistently involved in the project, from conception to completion. It also means keeping up with the literature and bringing in new and relevant insights. 

On a daily basis, this responsibility includes thinking about the experiments and potential interpretations of the data, troubleshooting, and planning the next set of experiments. Another very important expectation is that the student should take the initiative when it comes to discussions with the advisor and should come to such discussions with a clear agenda in mind. 

None of these expectations seems unreasonable, particularly considering that it is the student’s project and his/​her own scientific journey. However, the catch here is maintaining a balance. Both of these scenarios can be actively harmful — (1) doing everything by yourself without factoring in your advisor’s expertise, or (2) not thinking at all and relying on your advisor for every little thing (and blaming them when something does not work out). 

To strike this balance, one must understand the personality and philosophy that their PI operates on. For example, some PIs might just want to know the broad experimental plan, while others would like to see a detailed breakdown of each of your experiments with a timeline. Frequent and consistent communication with the PI comes handy in this situation. In fact, a lack of clear communication can stress out both advisors and students. 

Many students think that expressing their thoughts and expectations regarding experiments or their journey as a graduate student and plans for the future might leave a negative impression on their advisors. However, this is not true at all. In fact, most advisors appreciate such a discussion, because it suggests that the student is indeed invested in his/​her journey as a graduate student. 

Such a discussion also keeps surprises off the table and helps in opening dialogues on potential points of disagreement that can be worked upon slowly to reach a compromise that would favour both the student and the PI. Such discussions, though they can be uncomfortable at first, go a long way in maintaining a healthy student-mentor relationship.

Another expectation that the advisors expressed during the meeting was an understanding on the part of the students that PIs are busy people with many other responsibilities , such as doing administrative work, writing grants, and monitoring the progress of other graduate students. Advisors, therefore, expect students to organize themselves such that most of the student-mentor interactions are time and value-effective. 

This means that one should avoid abrupt plan changes as far as possible, like cancelling a pre-scheduled meeting, sending an abstract/​poster/​presentation for revision a day before the deadline, asking for a recommendation letter only a few days before the submission deadline etc. Additionally, it helps to send regular reminders, in case something important skips the PI’s mind. Being organized (time-efficient) also includes giving your advisor frequent, succinct and structured updates of your data.

While we are on the subject of data, advisors obviously expect students to follow ethical guidelines with regards to data generation, analysis, and organization . Since no advisor can micromanage a student at the level of experimentation, they particularly appreciate it if they can rely on the ethical lab practices of a student. A good lab notebook keeping practice is both a starting point and an indicator of such good lab practice. Advisors also expect that the student’s data is readily accessible, replicable, and can be traced back to the original experiments. Being honest with the advisors about mistakes or errors while doing experiments also falls under good lab practice. 

Lastly, and very importantly, advisors expect students to maintain a healthy and scientifically sound environment in the lab . Research students spend a lot of their time in their labs (sometimes >12 hours a day). It is therefore essential that students invest and put consistent efforts in maintaining an environment that is apt for their mental fitness and growth. This includes openly discussing experiments, ideas, and scientific studies, helping each other, and being receptive of critical feedback from peers. In research, one is likely to feel frustrated for various reasons, and a healthy and supportive lab environment can cater to exactly such situations and help sustain an overall positive environment. 

What do students expect from their advisors?

When it came to students, a common theme was immediately apparent: the students attending the meeting expected their PIs to be mentors, rather than just scientific advisors . They expected a mentor-mentee relationship with a more balanced power equation, rather than a boss-employee relationship. To students, being a mentor meant that the advisor would be more open to the student’s ideas about experiments, science, careers, or their journey as a researcher or as an individual. 

Another aspect of mentorship that came up during the meeting was PIs treating their relationship with their students as a partnership . This also involves extending empathy (not sympathy) to students for the troubles they faced and providing support (not hand-holding) when required. Students also want their advisors to understand or at least take into consideration the student’s point of view, strengths, and weaknesses before assigning them a project, or while assessing their performance and guiding them through the research program. 

The students expressed that when advisors act as mentors, it gives them (the students) a sense of lowered communication barriers, more freedom, and independence. The students understood that mentorship required more time and effort on the part of the advisor and conveyed that if advisors are open and willing to put some effort in this direction, they would feel reassured. 

Besides this, surprisingly, many of the students’ expectations were similar to the advisors’ expectations. Students expected advisors to value their time equally . They would also greatly appreciate if advisors send revisions on important documents including synopsis, paper drafts, abstracts, posters in time or otherwise inform them about the delays, if any. Students also expect advisors to be sensitive to the fact that students have limited time to finish their PhD or projects. 

Following ethical practices was another expectation that was similar between advisors and students. Additionally, students expect that advisors would work towards giving a  healthy, happy and safe working environment which is unbiased with respect to gender, nationality, origin or background of the students. 

Finally, students expect that they would be given their own physical, mental and emotional space where they can exist as individuals free to follow their passions, hobbies, or personal lives, and where professional and personal boundaries are respected. 

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –

I don’t know if listing all these points out in the open transformed the mentors and students but it definitely made them more aware and sensitive to each other’s expectations, which is the basic foundation of a healthy environment. I hope such open discussions would be adopted by more institutes who strive towards a healthy working environment.

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
• Int J Exerc Sci

Factors Affecting PhD Student Success

Sonia n. young.

1 Department of Physical Therapy, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

WILLIAM R. VANWYE

2 Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Gannon University, Ruskin, FL, USA

MARK A. SCHAFER

3 School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

TROY A. ROBERTSON

4 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

5 Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

ASHLEY VINCENT POORE

Attrition rates for Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs in the United States across the fields of engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities range from 36 – 51%. A qualitative literature review indicates certain factors may impact the PhD student’s success in completing the program and degree. The factors focused on in this review include the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process. Although kinesiology doctoral programs are evaluated and ranked by the National Academy of Kinesiology, little information is available exploring kinesiology PhD student success. General information on PhD student success may, therefore, be valuable to kinesiology PhD students and programs.

INTRODUCTION

Results from 2006 ( 31 ), 2007 ( 30 ), 2011 ( 28 ), and 2015 ( 33 ) provide evidence that the National Academy of Kinesiology (formerly the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education) evaluates and ranks kinesiology doctoral programs in the United States (U.S.) every five years. However, ranking information and data regarding the attrition rate of kinesiology PhD students and factors that may impact student attainment of the degree is not included. Although not specific to kinesiology, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) attrition data is available through The Council of Graduate Schools who performed a quantitative analysis of 30 institutions and nearly 50,000 students across five fields (i.e., engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities; 6). The 10-year PhD completion rate was 64%, 63%, 56%, 55%, and 49% for engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities, respectively ( 6 ). This relates to the field of kinesiology as it is classified as a life science by the Council of Graduate Schools ( 7 ).

Across the country, kinesiology programs typically do not have a standardized core curriculum and the outcomes of each program are established by the teaching and research expertise of the faculty. However, common courses such as research design and statistics are included in kinesiology PhD curriculums ( 26 ). Each program varies in the courses offered and amount and type of mentoring and advising of PhD students dependent on program faculty. Confusion also exists in the definition of the terms advising and mentoring in regard to PhD students. In a study by Titus and Ballou in 2013, 3,534 researchers, who had received a National Institute of Health (NIH) grant and had at least one PhD student, completed a survey to determine views of the role of advising and mentoring in PhD students ( 32 ). The participants were asked to rate and classify 19 activities as advisor only, mentor only, both, or neither ( 32 ). The activities of chairing a student’s dissertation committee and providing financial support were identified as the highest “advisor only” activities while teaching life or social skills and preparing contracts or grant proposals rated highest in “mentor only” activities ( 32 ). However, results indicated that most faculty members view their roles as mentor and advisor almost synonymously ( 32 ). As these terms can be used interchangeably, the authors will use the term mentoring or mentorship to encompass all advising and mentoring activities with PhD students. Titus and Ballou ( 32 ) also found that, while the majority of faculty supervising PhD students had training in human or animal subjects’ protection (89.6%) and responsible conduct of research (72.3%), relatively few had formal training on how to mentor (27.7%) or advise (25.4%) PhD students. Much of the mentorship therefore is dictated by the faculty’s personal doctoral experience and not typically from any formal training. Based on the amount of experience and training a mentor possesses, as well as the level of involvement in the PhD student experience, students may have vastly different experiences and outcomes such as completion of the program ( 8 ) and opportunities for professional development ( 20 ).

While little data is available on PhD student attrition in the area of kinesiology, research has indicated that multiple reasons contribute to PhD students in general not completing their programs ( 9 , 14 , 16 ). One of those reasons is navigating the dissertation process and following through to completion. In regard to the dissertation, it is typically up to the student to be intrinsically motivated and resourceful to manage the process and ensure the dissertation process persists until completion ( 9 ). Involvement of the faculty mentor in the dissertation process varies and may be dependent on the motivation and capabilities of the student. Faculty mentoring can play a monumental role in ensuring that doctorial students are successful throughout the coursework, dissertation process, and professional development. Russell advocates for kinesiology PhD programs to focus on developing professional stewardship in students ( 25 ). Stewardship includes teaching students how to: interact as a professional, become involved in and promote the profession, maintain ethical standards, and become autonomous researchers ( 13 , 24 , 25 ). Understanding reasons for attrition in PhD students can lead to a plan to mitigate barriers.

Overall, there has been limited research examining kinesiology PhD student success ( 20 , 25 ). Therefore, examining the existing evidence regarding PhD student success would be of benefit for kinesiology students and faculty alike by examining how to ensure successful completion of the program and determine any potential barriers. A qualitative literature review was performed by four of the authors with one additional author providing first-hand insight into the field of PhD level kinesiology programs. One author performed a search on PubMed using terms such as “kinesiology doctoral student success” and “kinesiology doctoral student” which garnered only one pertinent article. Three authors also performed an expanded electronic search on general PhD or doctoral student success, persistence, advising/mentoring, and attrition. The articles were selected if they related to kinesiology or general PhD success. The articles were then read and analyzed resulting in three recurring themes. For this review, PhD success was interpreted to mean successful completion of the degree and dissertation process. Attrition, in this review, is interpreted to mean students who did not complete the degree and or dissertation process and included those who dropped out during the program/coursework or those who finished the program/coursework but not the dissertation. In this review, the authors will discuss the following commonly cited issues affecting PhD student success: the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process ( Table 1 ). In addition, the authors will provide practical recommendations to address these issues to aid in success. By addressing the potential factors that may impact student success of completing the dissertation and program, administration, faculty, and students can have conversations that may lead to a better understanding of the process and address potential issues.

Summary of potential factors influencing PhD student success.

POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PHD STUDENT SUCCESS

Student-advisor relationship.

A critical factor in PhD student success (i.e., attaining the degree) is the student-advisor relationship ( 11 ). In a qualitative study by Knox et al., 19 psychology faculty members were interviewed about their student-advisor relationship with PhD students ( 18 ). Results indicated that it is not uncommon for doctoral advisors to adopt a mentoring style based on their own experience as a PhD student ( 18 ). Furthermore, they found a lack of training or preparation by the instructional institution leaves the task of acquiring mentoring skills to the practicing faculty member ( 18 ). This is in agreement with Golde and Dore who found that there appears to be a lack of emphasis programmatically on doctoral advising and mentoring ( 10 ).

An investigation by Mansson and Myers the authors found that advisors and advisees have similar ideas of what make a successful relationship ( 19 ). In this study, 636 doctoral and 141 faculty advisors from around the United States were surveyed about the mentoring relationship by using the Mentoring and Communication Support Scale, the Academic Mentoring Behavior Scale, and the Advisee Relational Maintenance Scale ( 19 ). This study found that advisees can positively influence the advisor-advisee relationship with 6 behaviors: showing appreciation, completing assignments in a timely manner, being courteous, protecting the reputation of the advisor, using humor in interactions with the advisor, and consulting the advisor about their individual goals ( 19 ). This was also supported by a qualitative study by Mazerolle et al. in 2015 in which 28 students completing a PhD in varied programs, including kinesiology and exercise science, were interviewed to determine their perception of mentoring from their advisors ( 20 ). The study found that most PhD students had positive relationships with their advisors with students founded on trust and communication ( 20 ). The students in this study further identified themes that must exist in a healthy mentoring relationship: encouraging independence and collaboration in a supportive environment, reciprocal relationship, and providing chances for professional development ( 20 ).

In the interest of improving PhD student success, some studies suggested that university and program-specific officials should evaluate how they can best provide structured and consistent mentorship, including training/mentoring for advisors ( 14 , 18 ). These mentorship strategies must be structured to consider that each student begins a program with different skill sets, levels of intrinsic motivation, and resilience. Harding-DeKam et al. postulated that initial steps for advisors, when the student initiates the program, included asking students what they intend to accomplish during the doctoral program and what area(s) they foresee needing the most support ( 15 ). The authors further suggest that advisors should schedule purposeful meetings to foster a relationship of open communication and trust, as well as using this time to provide explicit expectations ( 15 ). In a study of graduate students from library and information science, public affairs, higher education, and a variety of doctoral programs in the humanities and social sciences by Grady et al., the authors devised additional goals of regular meetings including: 1) timeline planning for degree completion and 2) possible funding available during and throughout their coursework ( 14 ). Some evidence offered advice on how to foster an improved relationship between the advisor and the PhD student but did not offer data that indicated whether or not the positive relationship impacted success.

While the evidence demonstrates that a healthy mentoring relationship is beneficial for the PhD student, there is conflicting evidence that this relationship has a direct impact on attrition. Golde et al. performed a qualitative analysis of 58 individuals from the humanities (English and history) and the science (biology and geology) who did not complete a doctoral program at a major American research institution to determine reasons for attrition ( 11 ). Major themes indicated that students feeling they were a mismatch and in isolation emerged ( 11 ). One of the areas of mismatch was in the student-advisor relationship and was cited as a reason for attrition ( 11 ). This is contrast to a qualitative study by Devos et al. who interviewed 21 former PhD students in Belgium (8 completing and 13 who did not) from science and technology, social sciences, and health sciences disciplines) to explore the students’ experiences that led to completion or attrition of the degree ( 8 ). The results indicated that while the supervisor support had a large impact, the quality of the relationship did not necessarily predict the success of the student in completing ( 8 ).

In summary, the student-advisor relationship can have both positive and negative influences ( Table 1 ). Recommendations to foster a positive student-advisor relationship include establishing mutual trust and clear communication early in the program including setting expectations, goals, and deadlines. The advisor should be supportive but also provide opportunities for development and encourage independence. The student should be proactive in the process of developing and maintaining a collaborative relationship rather than relying solely on the advisor to perform these tasks. Finally, administrators can also assist by providing an emphasis on advising tasks.

Mentorship plays a significant role in developing PhD students into professionals ( 9 ). Therefore, the advisor can also serve as a mentor to help the transition from student to professional ( 14 ). A study by Golde and Dore contends mentors are pivotal, not only for the PhD student’s education, but also for the development of the student’s desired career path ( 12 ). This includes exposing students to teaching, research, and service, but also includes helping students navigate professional subtleties, such as office politics ( 25 ).

An investigation of graduate student stress and strain found great value when mentors advised students transitioning into their new position being that there are many new added responsibilities beyond the pedagogical aspects of degree attainment ( 14 ). This is essential for PhD students, who often have many added responsibilities and subsequent stressors beyond the pedagogical aspects of the degree. For example, graduate students are often required to take on novel tasks beyond their studies (e.g., research, teach and/or oversee undergraduates), without the status, resources, or experience of a professional ( 14 ). Added responsibilities without support can lead to role conflict and overload, possibly affecting mental health and student success ( 14 ). A study that looked at the mental health of 146 graduate students in Brazil, who had been seen at a university mental health clinic, found that depression and anxiety were the main diagnoses reported (44%) and caused 4.5% of the students to be suspended from their programs ( 22 ). As mental health disorders are present in the graduate student population, advisors should be aware of this and may advise students on mental health resources.

It is also important to consider the advisor’s professional background and experience. A study by Carpenter et al. surveyed 21 doctoral faculty members of varying academic ranks in the field of communication, from a representative 14 universities, and revealed four main areas of support mentors provide: career, psychosocial, research, and intellectual ( 4 ). Of particular interest were the factors contributing to how this advisement was delivered ( 4 ). For example, lower ranking faculty provided mentorship that was more psychosocially-based ( 4 ). The authors speculated that as newer faculty tend to relate easier to students as they are not as far removed from their own graduate studies experience ( 4 ). On the other hand, the authors found that higher-ranking professors tend to provide more career and intellectual mentorship than their lower-ranking colleagues ( 4 ). However, tenured professors were less likely to collaborate on research compared to assistant professors ( 4 ). The authors of the study speculate that assistant professors are more inclined to collaborate with graduate students on research projects being that they are working towards tenure and promotion ( 4 ). Effective mentorship of the PhD student provides an avenue of development of professional behaviors and understanding of professional roles. This supportive environment may contribute to successful completion of a degree ( 4 ). Quality advising indicators of “number of doctoral advisees, faculty with at least one doctoral advisee, doctoral advisees who graduate, faculty with at least one doctoral advisee graduated, graduates who found employment within the field” were once used by the National Academy of Kinesiology in the five-year reports to rank and evaluate doctoral programs in kinesiology ( 33 ). Specific data related to these indicators for each school was not published, however. Additionally, in the latest report in 2015, the faculty indicators of total number and number of advisees that graduated were removed and employment was moved to a student indicator ( 33 ). The removal of these indicators, as well as the lack of specific data other than rank of the program, makes it difficult to gauge quality of mentorship as it relates to successful completion of a degree in kinesiology PhD programs.

Mentorship can also have a potential positive and negative influence on PhD student success ( Table 1 ). Recommendations for effective mentorship include providing students with exposure to and guidance in research, teaching, service and office politics. Additionally, the mentor should model professional behaviors and provide advice on mental health resources if needed.

Dissertation Process

The dissertation process may impact a PhD student’s success in completing the degree. Ali and Kohun divide the PhD program into four stages: Stage 1 – Preadmission to Enrollment, Stage II – First Year through Candidacy, Stage III- Second Year to Candidacy, and Stage IV – Dissertation Stage ( 1 ). Throughout theses stages, the student must build a committee and find a chair, formulate a research proposal, manage scheduling and time deadlines, and complete the dissertation. This process is often performed in relative isolation which can impact completion ( 1 ). A researcher interviewed 58 individuals from 4 departments in one university in the fields of history, biology, geology, and English who did not complete a PhD program and found isolation to be a major theme of the reason for attrition ( 11 ). Alternative dissertation models such as use of the cohort model and a lock-step process ( 11 ), the companion dissertation ( 21 , 23 ), and the supervision across disciplines model ( 5 ) have been proposed to mitigate the feelings of isolation.

Building a committee and finding a chair can complicate the dissertation process ( 15 , 27 ). Difficulties can arise from not knowing the pertinent questions to ask, nor understanding one’s options when selecting a chair and committee members. Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw advise to carefully select a chair and committee that work well together and with you ( 27 ). Beatty found that lack of effective communication with the committee and chair can also be a concern ( 3 ). This ineffective communication can lead to the supervisor being unaware of the amount and type of feedback that the student needs or lead to ambiguity about authorship and writing responsibilities ( 3 ). Another challenge noted by Beatty and Harding-DeKam et al. is selecting a topic that is unique, interesting, and relevant ( 3 , 15 ). Beatty further reports that PhD students should consider the focus of the topic area, whether the research is feasible and congruent with the committee chair’s expertise, and whether the methodology is appropriate ( 3 ). It has also been suggested that students start considering dissertation topics early at the start of the program to narrow the focus of their research ( 3 ). This may benefit students if assignments throughout the program can serve as preliminary work for the final dissertation ( 3 , 15 ). Lastly, time management skills may impact dissertation completion. The PhD student must be responsible and willing to take on tasks and to complete them in a timely manner ( 17 ). It has been proposed that PhD students should set deadlines and work continuously, avoiding taking extended breaks ( 2 , 13 ). As time is a critical factor, scheduling time for research and writing may keep the student focused ( 2 , 12 , 13 ). Harding-DeKam suggests that PhD advisors utilize structured meetings where what the student knows is analyzed against what the student needs to learn ( 15 ). The student is then given individualized and explicit expectations and deadlines to complete assignments depending on the stage of the process that he or she is in ( 15 ).

The dissertation process offers the PhD student an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills as well as positive attributes and behaviors needed as a professional. This challenging period of growth from student to professional may have barriers that will need to be overcome to be successful. Unfortunately, however, some students are unable to overcome these barriers. Completing the dissertation can be a major hurdle in PhD student success and influence attrition ( 23 ). These barriers were also noted in studies related to doctoral degrees in the field of education where when the student is no longer in the classroom, there is a loss of support from peers and instructors giving an opportunity to develop independence ( 15 , 27 ). This loss of structure can lead to apprehension and feelings of isolation, with the dissertation often cited as the most isolating portion of doctoral training ( 2 , 12 , 13 , 21 ). In addition, lack of structure as an all but dissertation (ABD) PhD student may lead to feelings of isolation and a loss of focus resulting in the student never completing his/her dissertation. This is congruent with a study by Gardner who interviewed 60 PhD students and 34 faculty members to determine perceived attributes for attrition from these stakeholders ( 10 ). The results of this study indicated that faculty found “student lacking” (including a lack of focus and motivation) to be the most identified reason for attrition at 53% ( 10 ). Both groups identified “personal problems” as reasons for PhD student attrition (15% faculty and 34% student) ( 10 ). Ali and Kohun found social isolation to be a major factor in attrition of the doctoral program and developed a four-stage framework to combat this ( 1 , 2 ). Some of the highlights from the proposed framework included a structured orientation, formal social events, a structured advisor selection, collaboration, and face-to-face communication ( 2 ). Kinesiology students also need structure and support. A study examining the socialization experiences of kinesiology PhD students by utilizing a qualitative approach found that they needed both social and resource support to be successful with difficulty noted most during times of transition – such as from the coursework phase to the dissertation phase ( 24 ).

Multiple alternative models for the dissertation process have been suggested. One alternative model is the cohort approach with a lock-step program. A study by Ali and Kohum described a PhD program of Information Systems and communications at Robert Morris University (RMU) that has a higher graduation rate (90%) and time of completion (3 years) than the national average ( 1 ). The RMU program utilizes a three-year lock-step program in which a strict schedule of community dinners, debriefings, presentation of proposals to students and faculty, and individual meetings with each member of the students’ committee is required to keep the PhD student on track ( 1 ). Additionally, the PhD students presented their progress to others in their cohort and elicited feedback throughout the process from development to completion allowing them to find issues and make modifications quicker ( 1 ). This method was also noted to decrease these PhD students’ feelings of isolation ( 1 ). The use of a companion dissertation is another alternative model for the dissertation process that has been described in the education ( 21 ) and nursing ( 23 ) fields which may decrease feelings of isolation. In a companion dissertation, two PhD students work together on the same project ( 23 ). Essential components are sharing a dissertation chair, a common research agenda, and a collaborative completion of the research and writing ( 21 , 23 ). While Robinson and Tagher found that this approach improved interactions between PhD students and, subsequently, degree completion ( 23 ), limited evidence on the number of schools utilizing this method was found. Limitations were also noted with the companion dissertation including co-writing taking longer, the dissertation seen as less rigorous, and tension between students to meet all deadlines ( 23 ). Thus, this dissertation approach may not be feasible in the field of kinesiology without further evidence of success. Additionally, Carter-Veale et al proposed another alternative dissertation model that utilized faculty mentors from multiple departments to give additional support and collaboration ( 5 ). However, limited information is available on the effectiveness of this proposed model or the number of schools utilizing this multi-department collaboration. Overall, the goal of these alternative methods is to decrease feelings of isolation by improving connectivity, collaboration, and communication between students, their peers, and their advisors and mentors ( 5 , 23 ). While the dissertation process can impact a PhD student’s completion of a degree, effective communication with the dissertation committee, early and relevant topic selection, effective time management skills, and adoption of alternative models may positively impact this process, but more evidence is needed.

As with the other areas identified, the dissertation process has positive and negative consequences on completion ( Table 1 ). Recommendations to improve the dissertation process include choosing a topic at the start of the program and scheduling times for research and writing with set deadlines. As isolation and ambiguity in the process can impact completion, mentors should ensure the students understand the dissertation process early in the program, be available to consult, and encourage the student to ask questions. Likewise, the student should take a proactive approach to understanding the process and seek help when needed.

A review of the literature suggests repeated themes of potential factors that impact PhD student success in completing the program and degree: the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process. As limited evidence is available regarding factors of success in PhD students specific to kinesiology, this general information gives insight to potential factors that may impact kinesiology PhD student success as well.

The student-advisor relationship can positively influence PhD student success by incorporating structured meetings, communication, and training for the advisors may improve the student-advisor relationship and therefore impact student success. This information may be useful to advisors so that they can help students better understand and navigate the program, as well as assist students in setting goals for meeting dissertation timeline deadlines.

Mentorship may also have a potential impact on PhD student success. Having a mentor to provide critical and timely information offers support to PhD students as they face the challenges listed in this review. Additionally, a mentor provides an opportunity for modeling and instruction on professional behaviors needed by the PhD student. A student could also find a mentor that is outside the department as in the Dissertation House Model where PhD students utilize multiple mentors across many disciplines to help supervise and assist in a cohort model ( 5 ).

The dissertation process should not be overlooked as an impactful experience on PhD student success. Evidence suggests selecting a chair and committee, building a topic, and managing the process and deadlines can impact success. Choosing a dissertation chair and committee was found to be a critical aspect to student success. To navigate this process, students are encouraged to proactively ask questions to understand the dissertation process, seek help from a mentor inside or outside of their department, research the chair and committee members area of research to see if it congruent with their interests, foster positive relationship by being proactive, and schedule time for writing and research. It has been suggested that the selection of a dissertation topic should begin early in the doctoral process. However, students should spend time reflecting prior to selecting a topic to ensure that it is interesting to them and that it will be relevant to their profession. As PhD students may feel isolated in the dissertation process, alternate models such as collaboration or the companion dissertation were reviewed; however little evidence is available on the widespread use or success of these models.

PhD student success of completing a degree and program is multifactorial. More evidence is needed regarding PhD student success for those enrolled in kinesiology programs. This could include a comprehensive survey to PhD students enrolled in kinesiology programs and those who completed the degree to determine the factors that these stakeholders attribute to successful completion. Additionally, a rise in undergraduate majors in kinesiology programs also necessitates the need for qualified PhD trained faculty as these majors are often selected by students entering physical therapy and other professional graduate programs ( 29 ). Therefore, future studies may also look at the type and quality of mentorship of PhD students for careers in higher education. Because there is limited information regarding kinesiology PhD student success degree completion, more research is needed with the aim of improving retention and completion.

Sai Kanth Dacha

Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Columbia University

• New York City
• Google Scholar

What to Look for in a Potential PhD Advisor

12 minute read

Published: July 17, 2020

“Is he ghosting me?”

“Is she mad at me? Did I say something wrong?”

“Am I good enough? Does s/he even recognize and appreciate what I’m doing?”

Although these sound like the thoughts of someone worried if their partner/spouse is mad at them, these are also the kinds of thoughts that PhD students riddled with Impostor Syndrome often have about their advisors/PIs.

This apparent similarity might seem strange at first sight, but there is often a deeper reality to it: a PhD advisor, and by extension the relationship that a student has with their advisor, has enormous influence over the graduate school experience of the student. Just as a romantic relationship requires effort, communication, honesty and integrity, so does the relationship with one’s PhD advisor.

The struggle is real

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but doing a PhD is quite challenging, especially these days. Grad school application processes are notoriously expensive. Acceptance rates tend to average around 5-10% for STEM fields in the US , and can be low as 2–5% for some programs. International students have the added complication of getting a visa: in 2018, rejection rate for non-immigrant F-1 visa was around 35% . Once they’re in, graduate students world over are often not compensated well enough. In the face of ever-increasing cost of living, this leads to financial stress . Anxiety, stress, impostor syndrome, loneliness, concerns about the future, funding issues are only some of the all-too-familiar challenges that PhD students have to face on a daily basis; all while trying to do something completely new and original that no one in the world has ever done before! It is perhaps no wonder that PhD dropout rates in the US are as high as 50% .

Program structures and academic supervision also have a big role to play. Specifically, the relationship that you have with your advisor can greatly influence your PhD experience. The stories that I’ve listened to from my friends and colleagues over the past few years have made me realize exactly how bad things can get. Together with my own advisor struggles, these stories have given me a better perspective now on what it is that one should look for in a potential PhD advisor. This article is an attempt to give words to my thoughts on this subject — while my grad school experiences are still fresh in memory — in hopes that it will be useful to a prospective PhD student that is looking to find a thesis advisor.

The “Obvious”

1.1) research areas, type of work:.

Assuming acceptance into a PhD program, the first “obvious” thing to look for in a potential advisor is their research interests. Often times, incoming PhD students already have a few research groups in mind before they join the program. This is good practice, but is far from sufficient.

Perhaps the best advice that I’ve received on this topic is from my current advisor, when I first met him before joining his group: look for what it is that you would do on a day-to-day basis and see if you find that exciting, rather than make a choice purely based on research topics. Are you an experimentalist and enjoy hands-on work? If so, would you want to do system-level work or are you more interested in device fabrication? Or are you more inclined to do computational or theoretical work? Asking these questions in addition to what area you want to work in can greatly help in deciding which research group to join.

1.2) Funding:

Funding for universities and scientific research is awfully lacking in many countries, and this is often reflected in the number of active researchers per million population. My own home country India, for instance, has only about 150 researchers per million . Availability of grant funds can vary from one field to another, but generally speaking, there isn’t enough to go around. I have known far too many of my own peers who have had to either TA (in addition to doing research) for multiple years on end, or switch groups because funds ran out. As a result, it is usually helpful to check with a potential advisor if they are willing to fund you for the entire duration of your PhD.

The Less Obvious (And underrated)

2.1) the human being:.

Professors, especially the more popular ones, are some times made out to be larger-than-life figures who can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is that they are human beings, and have personalities and flaws just like everybody else. This might not matter to most people that interact with them, but it does to their PhD students.

A professor that I once worked with drew pleasure from needlessly ridiculing some of his students in front of other people. Another professor I knew would yell at his students as though they were his servants. The advisor of one of my friends is infamous for making his students spend many days on a report or a proposal, only to organize an 8 hour meeting soon after to rephrase everything the way he likes it. Another friend of mine has an advisor that has consistently given preferential treatment to one specific student in the group that she seemingly liked better. I could go on, but you get the point. In all of these cases, the personality of the advisor only affected their student(s), and no one else.

This is not to say that all advisors are bad people; in fact, in my experience, many are good people. But the point is, whether an advisor is a decent human being or not is often overlooked by many before they decide to work for him/her. Does s/he seem like a reasonable individual? Will they let you stay home if you fall sick, or will they expect you to come in no matter what? Do they seem like someone that would care for your mental health and your progress? These questions are important ones that both current and new graduate students must start asking.

As with toxic personal relationships, toxic professional relationships with PhD advisors are bad for students’ mental health. Suicide rates are high enough among PhD students as it is, and the last thing that you’d want as a first-year PhD student is to end up in an advisor situation that could make you regret your choice of doing a PhD. It is therefore a good idea to do your due diligence.

Some of this is hard to assess before joining a group, of course. But talking to current group members and asking the right questions can give you a good sense of things. This, of course, is still not a sufficient enough or a clear-cut enough solution, but it’s a good start. And if you somehow do hear something about what kind of a person s/he is, you would know to not neglect that information.

2.2) The Researcher:

Some researchers prioritize publishing as many papers as possible over all else, and go after quantity over quality. In my field, I have seen competitor groups that try to publish a new paper for every slightly-different result that they get in the lab. More often than not, this has made me desperate to get my work out as quickly as possible (in other words, prematurely). About a year ago, I insisted to my advisor that we submit some experimental observations that I made in the lab to a popular conference in my field. He said no. I persisted, and he still said no. He was not convinced that the data that I had collected was good enough to be published anywhere, despite my confidence in it.

The publication-starved graduate student in me was disappointed and a little heart-broken, but I later realized that he had taught me an important lesson about scientific integrity. (The data that I was so confident about later turned out to be not so reliable after all!) In my view, the kind of researcher that your advisor is will greatly shape what kind of researcher you will go on to be.

2.3) Willingness to Invest in You:

Time : There is some times a misconception among the general public that professorship can be a laid-back job, but most professors that I’ve interacted with are incredibly busy people. In addition to managing multiple research projects, students and postdocs, they are often shooting for new grants, teaching courses, are on various committees and also taking care of their kids and family. While part of their unavailability is therefore more than understandable, some advisors don’t end up making enough time for their students at all. Whether or not you actually get advice from your advisor on a regular basis is key to your growth as a researcher.

Resources: Would a potential advisor invest in your learning and training, or would they rather have you do only what matters for churning out papers? The whole point of a PhD is for you to learn about a subject in as much depth and breadth (in that order) as possible. It is therefore crucial that your advisor gives you the space and opportunities to learn and grow. This could mean anything from providing access to learning material to letting you attend summer schools and academic conferences.

Both of these are important aspects for a good learning experience, and it is a good idea to discuss them with current students of the advisor before making a decision.

2.4) Expectations and Communication:

New professors are often under pressure to publish at a faster pace to be able to keep their jobs. This usually means greater pressure on his/her graduate students to work harder. Older/tenured professors are a bit more “relaxed” in this regard. Neither is necessarily better than the other for a graduate student, but the potential workload and pressure is something to consider. Make sure you know what is expected of you before making the commitment, especially if you have other responsibilities (other jobs, kid(s) to take care of etc.).

Part of doing so is to be able to communicate with your advisor freely. For a long time, a friend of mine has had issues communicating her concerns with her advisor about sexist micro-aggressions directed at her by certain members of the group. The advisor was a woman too, which would ideally have meant that my friend should have felt safe to voice her concerns. But she didn’t. The reason there was simple: the advisor was far too detached from the individuals that made up the group, and communication between her and her students (especially my friend) was non-existent.

The moral of the story is that being able to communicate with your advisor freely about anything and everything is important, to say the least. To those that aren’t going through the PhD experience themselves, this might seem like asking for too much, but as any grad student that has suffered from issues such as this would tell you, communication matters.

Also “Obvious” (But overrated)

3.1) “connections”/”popularity”/h-index:.

It could be tempting to readily join any “popular”/highly-published/well-connected professor’s group if they will have you, but this could prove counterproductive if you have not paid close enough attention to the more fundamental aspects that I’ve mentioned above. The professor that I mentioned before — the one that likes to ridicule his students needlessly in front of others — is extremely well-known in a worldwide scientific collaboration. He is one of the most brilliant people that I have ever met. But I would not want to do my PhD with him.

3.2) University Affiliation:

This is a popular one too. Wouldn’t it be “cooler” to introduce yourself as a PhD student at Harvard or Cornell rather than one at Florida State? It probably would, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better. It is true that Harvard or Cornell might offer you a better overall student experience than some lesser-known universities (not that Florida State isn’t well-known), but there are so many more important things for a PhD. In addition to what I’ve already mentioned above, research environment in the department, access to research facilities and potential collaborators are much more crucial for a well-rounded research experience — irrespective of whether that is at an Ivy League school or some other. These factors are not relevant for undergraduate studies, but for graduate research, they most certainly are.

It is easy (and tempting) to fall into the illusion that h-indices and rankings matter a lot, but more often than not, that illusion breaks as quickly as it comes once the PhD grind begins. Working with a well-connected advisor at an Ivy League school surely has its benefits, but only if you are able to get the support that you need from them to be able to get through grad school in one piece.

The Bottomline

If there is anything that you take away from this article, I hope it is that there is more than what meets the eye when it comes to choosing a PhD advisor. Beyond what the numbers will tell you, the human being that your future advisor is is something that matters. Deciding to do a PhD is a huge commitment. Perhaps today more than ever, graduate students all over the world are facing increasing difficulties with financial compensation, stress, work-life balance and mental health. Having a supportive advisor by your side can greatly help make these 5–6 (hopefully not more) years a better experience.

Checking all of these boxes might not be possible for many. An advisor situation without any issues whatsoever might be even more unlikely. I certainly have had my own challenges and struggles in this regard. I’ve realized that some level of friction and some compromise is almost inevitable, and that that is not necessarily a result of you or your advisor not doing enough, but rather a reflection of the difficulty and complexity of undertaking scientific research. But by asking the right questions before (or even after) making the commitment, and by demanding what is only fair, we not only help our individual selves, but we also help build an environment where the needs of graduate students are better heard. And that, in my view, ultimately only strengthens academia and the scientific community at large.

I am incredibly grateful for the extremely considerate human being and the brilliant researcher that my advisor is — in that order. My hope is that you will be too, for your future advisor.

Needless to say, this article is neither “expert advice” nor “peer-reviewed”. But it was written with the hope that at least some of it will be useful. All this is is the inner thoughts of a 4th year PhD student that has hit multiple roadblocks on his research and is waiting for his advisor to respond to some of his emails.

This story was originally published by the author on Medium .

You May Also Enjoy

Navigating the academic postdoc job market.

7 minute read

Published: July 02, 2023

Thoughts and advice on finding your way through the ever-confusing postdoc job market.

An Informal Guide for Ph.D. Interning During the Semester via the F-1 CPT

8 minute read

Published: January 11, 2022

A few months ago, I had faced the task of extending my summer employment at Nokia Bell Labs into the Fall semester. Little did I know that the process of getting work authorization for the semester and ensuring compliance with other rules is a bit of a minefield, especially for an international Ph.D. student in the U.S. like myself. There were many factors to weigh, and I spent a frustrating few weeks with little guidance to ensure that I’m in compliance with rules concerning everything from immigration and full-time student status to health benefits and tuition fee. Part of this difficulty stemmed from certain specific aspects of the situation that I was in, but a bigger part of it was also that there aren’t very many practical guides out there for international Ph.D. students wanting to do internships during the semester (which as I learnt recently, many are interested in). And so I decided to put together this informal and practical guide that might be helpful for students that might be in similar situations.

Emory Global Health Case Competition - A Reflection

1 minute read

Published: March 20, 2021

A reflection after taking part in the 2021 Emory Global Health Case Competition.

The Earth-bending Scale of the Great Lakes

Published: January 11, 2021

Did you know that you don’t need to be in space to observe the effects of earth’s curvature?

Maintaining Relationships

One of the major differences between undergraduate and graduate study is the depth of academic relationships with professors and peers. In addition to these academic relationships, you will still have to manage personal relationships with your family and friends.

Select an article below to learn more.

Maintaining a Healthy Relationship with Yourself

Does support for graduate students exist?   Successful life as a graduate student depends on your ability to maintain balance between the various elements of your life, and often necessitates seeking out some support. If you are unable to maintain balance in your life as a graduate student, then you may face some negative consequences […]

Tips for Balancing Work and Family

When graduate students think about balancing work and family, the first thing that comes to mind is often “Help!” In addition to academic relationships with professors, advisors, committees, and classmates, some students have to still make time for their spouses and children! To foster these academic relationships and to further their academic success, graduate students […]

What Goes Around Comes Back Around (Albeit Slowly)

Grad School Tips to Speed up the Process Writing a thesis or dissertation is a long and, at times, slow process. Given the daunting nature of such a task, it would make perfect sense that you would want it to go by quickly. There are many ways that you can speed up the process of […]

Resolving Academic Advisor Issues

An important part of surviving graduate school is having a strong relationship with your academic advisor. Whether your advisor is assisting you with the class selection process, reviewing your dissertation or thesis, or conflict resolution skills for your academic dispute, your advisor is vital to your career as a graduate student. Before you even start […]

Maintaining Healthy Relationships with Peers

When you were an undergraduate, you were probably one of the most motivated and engaged students in all of your classes and had no problem balancing work and life. You probably received the highest grades and were chosen by your professors for leadership opportunities both inside and outside class. Your sense of responsibility, accountability, and […]

Maintaining Healthy Academic Relationships with Professors

As undergraduates, students most often interact with professors at a distance during classroom lectures; if professors and undergraduates do interact one on one outside classrooms, they typically do so in brief office visits or elevator conversations. Unlike undergraduate students, graduate students interact with professors much more often. Ideally, graduate students will develop close academic relationships […]

Cultivating Conflict Resolution Skills

Everyone in graduate school is stressed, and everyone in graduate school is competing for something. The stress and competition of graduate school inevitably leads to conflicts among professors, students, and those who support professors and students. Conflicts in graduate school have negative consequences for everyone: conflicts can damage mentor relationships between professors and students and […]

Copyright © 2024 PhDStudent.com. All rights reserved. Designed by Divergent Web Solutions, LLC .

Voices of the Global Community

The advising relationship is at the core of academic advising.

Elizabeth M. Higgins , University of Southern Maine

Student learning is at the center of what advisors do, with the development of an effective advising relationship as the gateway to that learning experience.  According to Campbell and Nutt (2008), academic advising is a “powerful educational strategy to engage and support student learning.”  Through the educational process of advising, an advisor can guide students through meaning-making, skill identification and development, critical thinking, scaffolding of knowledge, and acquisition of transferrable skills (Lowenstein, 2009).  Academic advisors can be the transformational leaders in the learning process by focusing on the individuality of the student, assisting them in thinking independently, motivating them through inspiration, and acting as role models (Barbuto, Story, Fritz, & Schinstock, 2011).  Although the advisor may be the leader, there are two individuals within the advising relationship: both need to be engaged in order to effect a partnership. 

Relational Theory in Advising

Assessment of advising has assisted many advising programs in identifying outcomes associated with both student learning as well as advisor and advising program delivery.  Learning and programmatic outcomes identify what should be learned through the process and delivery of academic advising.  They also give the advising programs the ability to identify who is responsible for what.  However, the challenge is identifying how to build an advising relationship that is centered on teaching and learning and that works for both the student and advisor.  A dip into interpersonal relations theory provides guidance.

The interpersonal relations theory of Hildegard Peplau (1991/1952) provides clarification on the building blocks and progression of a relationship within a helping profession.  This theory highlights the importance of getting to know relational partners and their roles, creating a sense of belonging and ownership for the process, developing and achieving goals, and creating readiness for independence.   According to Peplau, there are four relational phases of the interpersonal process inherent in a professional practice: orientation, identification, exploration, resolution.  The relationship is viewed as developing over time through interactions that engage both partners, sharing knowledge, and working towards identified goals (Peplau, 1977).  A key component in promoting an engaged partnership is active dialog between the relational partners (Johnson & Morgan, 2005; Lowenstein, 2009).  There are particular relational elements that contribute to and promote an engaged advising partnership: trust, communication, and connectedness.

Trust has been found to create a bond between individuals as they work cooperatively and explore experiences (Bordin, 1979, 1983).  This concept is also highlighted in the NACADA (2006) concept statement: “the relationship between advisors and students is fundamental and is characterized by mutual respect, trust, and ethical behavior” (para. 1).  Each interaction the advising pair has is an opportunity to build the foundational element of trust. 

Institutions often promote academic advisors as individuals upon whom students can depend for accurate information, help with goal setting and attainment, educational direction, and assistance with their future aspirations.  This presumes a level of trust at the onset of the relationship that is known to take time to build (Beck, 1999).  Assisting students and advisors with early engagement can help in creating opportunities for ongoing contact that supports the development of trust between the relational pair.  The early engagement connects the two individuals together on a professional level in order for the advising pair to converse, question, listen, and share.  Listening and appropriate questioning was found to build rapport and develop trust within the advising relationship (Thornhill & Yoder, 2010).

Ongoing communication can also support student and advisor connection in order to share information, learning opportunities, and engage in dialog about the student’s goals, strengths, and interests (Young-Jones, Burt, Dixon, Hawthorne, 2013).  Broad communications sent electronically or in hardcopy to individual students or to student groups are helpful in sharing information, but not as the way to develop an interpersonal relationship; for relationship development, a more direct approach to communication is necessary.  Results of a research study exploring the experiences of 611 students showcased that conversations between the student and advisor that focus on academic life helped identify areas of support needed for student success (Young-Jones et al., 2013).  Advising conversations can also support the development of an environment where a student feels comfortable and supported to share information, ask questions, and experience self-reflection (Hughey, 2011). 

Campbell and Nutt (2008) suggest that academic advising facilitates the connection students have with the institutional community.  If academic advising acts as a connector, what creates the connection between the student and the advisor? This question is critical in understanding the interpersonal relationship found in the practice of academic advising.  Creating the connection between the student and the advisor begins with understanding the definition of relational connection. 

Brown (2010) states that “connection is when an individual feels seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgement.”  Advisors are the individuals who can facilitate interactions where students can be acknowledged, listened to, and valued for who they are in the present moment without preconceived judgements.  As with any developing relationship, there is an amount of authentic sharing from both partners that must occur in order to develop a trust-filled relationship.  Sharing also creates a level of vulnerability within the partnership that can be offset by trust and communication.  The sharing and actions of both relational partners highlight the need for advising to be a relationship where individuals share responsibilities (Allen & Smith, 2008; Crockett, 1985; Frost, 1991).  These shared responsibilities and ongoing conversations promote an environment for relational growth.

How Can Institutions and Advising Programs Assist?

Beres (2010) states that the relational skills are the most challenging area in which to provide professional development.  Identifying this challenge, along with the knowledge of the critical nature of a good academic advising relationship, highlights the importance for institutions to take on this professional development responsibility.  Understanding more about the advising relationship allows advising practitioners to identify areas to strengthen the practice of advising and provide an effective and satisfying academic advising experience for students.  These opportunities must be contextual in that they are designed to match the identified needs of students and advisors at a particular institution.  Influenced by Beres (2010), the following relational topics offer advisors and advising programs a starting point to begin to design offerings that can be complemented with specific institutional needs. 

• Creating your physical advising space
• Making appropriate referrals
• Using creativity during the advising session
• How to have difficult conversations with students that are productive
• Gaining student information through active listening and observing
• Student goal setting
• How to create boundaries within the advising relationship
• Guiding students through the decision-making process
• Understanding non-verbal cues
• Tips on being the authentic advisor
• What does an advising conversation look like
• Good advising doesn’t have to be warm and fuzzy
• Students with mental health issues
• Adult students
• Veteran students
• At-risk students
• High achieving students
• Students as parents
• Students with disabilities
• Online students
• Undecided students
• Transfer student
• Graduate students

Grappling with how best to provide professional development opportunities that support an engaged and meaningful advisor-advisee relationship is a challenge critical to continuing to improve a practice essential to student success in college.  The goal should be to support the development of an advisor–advisee relationship that is authentic, grounded in teaching and learning, and built over time through trust, communication, and connectedness.  To be effective within the relational realm, it is highly recommended that advisors and advising programs understand and embrace these relational components as primary pillars of the academic advising relationship.  

Elizabeth M. Higgins , Ed.D. Director of Academic Advising University of Southern Maine [email protected]

Allen, J. M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (5), 397-411.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., Story, J. S., Fritz, S. M., & Schinstock, J. L. (2011). Full range advising: Transforming the advisor-advisee experience. Journal of College Student Development, 52 (6), 656-670.

Barnett, S., Roach, S., & Smith, M. (2006). Microskills: Advisor behaviors that improve communication with advisees. NACADA Journal, 26 (1), 6-12.

Beck, A. (1999). Advising undecided students: Lessons from chaos theory. NACADA Journal, 19 (1), 45-49.

Beres, K. (2010). Delivery systems: Workshops, lectures, panels and presentations. In J. G. Voller, M. Miller, & S. L. Neste (Eds.), Comprehensive advisor training and development: Practices that deliver . NACADA monograph series no. 21 (pp. 79-88).

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16 (3), 252-260. doi:10.1037/h0085885

Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The counseling psychologist, 11 (1), 35-42. doi:10.1177/0011000083111007

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: Supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement . Peer Review, 10(1), 4–7.

Crockett, D. S. (1985). Academic advising. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of College Student Personnel, 13 (1), 12-17.

Ender, S. C. (1994). Impediments to developmental advising. NACADA Journal, 14 (2), 105-107.

Frost, S. H. (1991). Fostering the critical thinking of college women through academic advising and faculty contact. Journal of College Student Development, 32 (4), 359-366.

Harrison, E. (2009). What constitutes good academic advising? Nursing students' perceptions of academic advising. Journal of Nursing Education, 48 (7), 361-366.

Hughey, J. K. (2011). Strategies to enhance interpersonal relations in academic advising. NACADA Journal, 31 (2), 22-32.

Johnson, E. J., & Morgan, B. L. (2005). Advice on advising: Improving a comprehensive university's program. Teaching of Psychology, 32 (1), 15-18.

Lowenstein, M. (2009). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal, 29 (1), 123-131.

NACADA. (2006). NACADA concept of academic advising. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Concept-of-Academic-Advising-a598.aspx  

NACADA. (2017). Academic Advising Core Competencies Model. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/About-Us/NACADA-Leadership/Administrative-Division/Professional-Development-Committee/PDC-Advisor-Competencies.aspx

Peplau, H. E. (1991). Interpersonal relations in nursing: A conceptual frame of reference for psychodynamic nursing . New York, NY: Springer. (Original work published 1952).

Peplau, H. E. (1997). Peplau's theory of interpersonal relations. Nursing Science Quarterly, 10, 162-167.

Thornhill, K. & Yoder, F. (2010). Teaching the soft skills necessary for building advising relationships. In J.G. Voller, M. Miller, & S. L. Neste (Eds.), Comprehensive advisor training and development: Practices that deliver . NACADA monograph series no. 21. (pp. 171-177).

Young-Jones, A. D., Burt, T. D., Dixon, S., & Hawthorne, M. J. (2013). Academic advising: does it really impact student success? Quality Assurance in Education, 21 (1), 7-19.

Cite this article using APA style as: Higgins, E.M. (2017, June). The advising relationship is at the core of academic advising. Academic Advising Today , 40 (2). Retrieved from [insert url here] 

Related Articles

Post comment, in the current issue.

• Consideration of the Relationship Between the NACADA Pillar Documents, and Placement of Each Pillar in a Hierarchy of Students’ Needs
• Supporting Indigenous Students at Predominantly White Institutions
• Advising Strategies to Combat Challenges in Teacher Preparation Programs
• Improving the Quality of Graduate and Professional Student Annual Progress Reports
• Remote Academic Advising: A Review of the Post-Pandemic Literature
• Cultivating Excellence: A Structured Approach to Professional Development in Academic Advising
• Retaining Advisors Through a Trauma-Informed Leadership Approach
• Money as Medicine in Advisor Wellness
• Re-Framing My Approach to Mentorship
• Integrating Positive Psychology Principles into Academic Coaching Practices
• Serving Our Students More Effectively: Partnerships Between Advisors and Registrar Staff

Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis

• Published: 04 May 2018
• Volume 116 , pages 161–180, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Jiaying Liu 1 ,
• Tao Tang 2 ,
• Xiangjie Kong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2698-3319 1 ,
• Amr Tolba 3 , 4 ,
• Zafer AL-Makhadmeh 3 &
• Feng Xia 1  

1056 Accesses

17 Citations

Explore all metrics

Advisor–advisee relationship is important in academic networks due to its universality and necessity. Despite the increasing desire to analyze the career of newcomers, however, the outcomes of different collaboration patterns between advisors and advisees remain unknown. The purpose of this paper is to find out the correlation between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ academic performance in Computer Science. Employing both quantitative and qualitative analysis, we find that with the increase of advisors’ academic age, advisees’ performance experiences an initial growth, follows a sustaining stage, and finally ends up with a declining trend. We also discover the phenomenon that accomplished advisors can bring up skilled advisees. We explore the conclusion from two aspects: (1) Advisees mentored by advisors with high academic level have better academic performance than the rest; (2) Advisors with high academic level can raise their advisees’ h-index ranking. This work provides new insights on promoting our understanding of the relationship between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ performance, as well as on advisor choosing.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Network-based indices of individual and collective advising impacts in mathematics

Ranking Academic Advisors: Analyzing Scientific Advising Impact Using MathGenealogy Social Network

The influence of academic advisors on academic network of Physics doctoral students: empirical evidence based on scientometrics analysis

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

https://www.aminer.cn .

Amjad, T., Ding, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, C., Daud, A., Tang, J., et al. (2017). Standing on the shoulders of giants. Journal of Informetrics , 11 (1), 307–323.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more . New York: Hachette Books.

Google Scholar  

Azoulay, P. (2012). Research efficiency: Turn the scientific method on ourselves. Nature , 484 (7392), 31–32.

Borders, L. D., Wester, K. L., Granello, D. H., Chang, C. Y., Hays, D. G., Pepperell, J., et al. (2012). Association for counselor education and supervision guidelines for research mentorship: Development and implementation. Counselor Education and Supervision , 51 (3), 162–175.

Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & Kostopoulos, K. (2014). Mentoring receipt and personality: Evidence for non-linear relationships. Journal of Business Research , 67 (2), 171–181.

Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 51 (1), 15–28.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology , 45 (3), 619–636.

Dobson, L. (2013). Effective practices of formal mentoring programs. Math Alliance Research Study , 3 , 1–3.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 10 (4), 309–320.

Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics , 114 (3), 393–408.

Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 83 (1), 106–116.

Glänzel, W., Heeffer, S., & Thijs, B. (2017). Lexical analysis of scientific publications for nano-level scientometrics. Scientometrics , 111 , 1–10.

Gollapalli, S. D., Mitra, P., & Giles, C. L. (2011). Ranking authors in digital libraries. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries , (pp. 251–254). ACM.

Hu, C., Wang, S., Yang, C.-C., & Wu, T.-Y. (2014). When mentors feel supported: Relationships with mentoring functions and protégés’ perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 35 (1), 22–37.

Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2015). The elements of mentoring . Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal , 26 (4), 608–625.

Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Sivertsen, G., Kristiansen, E. H., Aksnes, D. W., Borlaug, S. B., et al. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy , 42 , scu083.

Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature , 444 (7122), 1003–1004.

Letchford, A., Moat, H. S., & Preis, T. (2015). The advantage of short paper titles. Royal Society open science , 2 (8), 150266.

Ley, M. (2009). DBLP: Some lessons learned. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , 2 (2), 1493–1500.

Malmgren, R. D., Ottino, J. M., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010). The role of mentorship in protégé performance. Nature , 465 (7298), 622–626.

Moreira, C., Calado, P., & Martins, B. (2011). Learning to rank for expert search in digital libraries of academic publications. In Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence , (pp. 431–445). Springer.

Murphy, T. H. (2015). On great teachers. Journal of Legal Studies Education , 32 (1), 223–227.

Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 98 (2), 404–409.

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Owens, B. (2013). Research assessments: Judgement day. Nature , 502 (7471), 288–290.

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 43 (3), 251–265.

Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science , 354 (6312), aaf5239.

Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the rising star hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 74 (1), 11–17.

Tang, J., Jin, R., & Zhang, J. (2008). A topic modeling approach and its integration into the random walk framework for academic search. In Eighth IEEE international conference on data mining, 2008. ICDM’08 , (pp. 1055–1060). IEEE.

Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). Arnetminer: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , (pp. 990–998). ACM.

Tuesta, E. F., Delgado, K. V., Mugnaini, R., Digiampietri, L. A., Mena-Chalco, J. P., & Pérez-Alcázar, J. J. (2015). Analysis of an advisor–advisee relationship: An exploratory study of the area of exact and earth sciences in Brazil. PloS ONE , 10 (5), e0129065.

Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 (3), 410–423.

Wang, W., Liu, J., Xia, F., King, I., & Tong, H. (2017). Shifu: Deep learning based advisor–advisee relationship mining in scholarly big data. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion , (pp. 303–310). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

Wang, W., Liu, J., Yu, S., Zhang, C., Xu, Z., & Xia, F. (2016). Mining advisor–advisee relationships in scholarly big data: A deep learning approach. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on joint conference on digital libraries .

Wang, W., Yu, S., Bekele, T. M., Kong, X., & Xia, F. (2017). Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars academic ages. Scientometrics , 112 (1), 329–343.

Xia, F., Wang, W., Bekele, T. M., & Liu, H. (2017). Big scholarly data: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Big Data , 3 (1), 18–35.

Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). What did you expect? An examination of career-related support and social support among mentors and protégés. Journal of Management , 26 (4), 611–632.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through research group NO (RG-1438-027). Xiangjie Kong is supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant NO (DUT18JC09), and China Scholarship Council under Grant NO (201706060067).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, School of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

Jiaying Liu, Xiangjie Kong & Feng Xia

Chengdu College, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

Computer Science Department, Community College, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Amr Tolba & Zafer AL-Makhadmeh

Mathematics and Computer Science Department, Faculty of Science, Menoufia University, Shibin El Kom, Egypt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangjie Kong .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liu, J., Tang, T., Kong, X. et al. Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis. Scientometrics 116 , 161–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2762-2

Download citation

Received : 08 October 2017

Published : 04 May 2018

Issue Date : July 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2762-2

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic networks
• Scholarly data
• Social network analysis
• Advisor–advisee relationship
• Collaboration patterns
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Get the Reddit app

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

Personal relationships between PhD student and advisor

So what do you all think about a PhD advisor going out with their student? I met a student like that in the past, and the more I found out about them both, it was clear that both had serious issues. It became clear to me that the student had much less aptitude for the field and being an academic than her PhD would suggest.

Today I found out that there is another instance of this going on at my university. In both cases, people on faculty knew/know something was/is up, but AFAICT, nothing was/is done about it. I did some googling, and apparently this sort of thing is not actually that rare!

Also I knew someone whose mother was his PhD advisor, at least for part of his candidature. It seems to me that having a non-work relationship here is a conflict of interest...

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

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

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

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

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

Reset your password

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

Check your inbox

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

Choose a Reddit account to continue

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 The Norwegian context

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Theoretical framework

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

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

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

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

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

2 Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1 Cumulative research process

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

3.1 Quantitative part (survey)

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

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

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

3.1.1 Challenges in supervision

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

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

3.1.2 Challenges in working from home

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

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

3.1.3 Factors PhD candidates need to complete their doctorate

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

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

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

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

3.1.4 Appreciation of supervision

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

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

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

3.1.5 What competencies supervisors need

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

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

3.1.6 Female academics with children

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

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

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

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

3.2.1 Analyzing the interview with Kyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Analyzing the interview with Sally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.3 Analyzing the interview with Gabbie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.4 Analyzing the interview with Henrik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.5 Analyzing the interview with Luna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.6 Analyzing the interview with Lydia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.7 Analyzing the interview with Michelle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.8 Analyzing the interview with Ollie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.9 Analyzing the interview with Tyler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.10.1 overview.

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

Main Themes Identified:

1. Impact of the Pandemic on PhD Progression:

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

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

2. Changes in Supervision Practices:

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

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

3. Work Environment and Work-Life Balance:

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

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

4. Professional Development and Academic Output:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Resilience and Innovation in Supervision:

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

2. Diverse Impacts on Different Research Types:

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

3. Underestimation of Emotional Challenges:

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

4. Lack of Institutional Support:

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

5. The Positive Impact of Forced Adaptation:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Adaptation to Digital Tools and Platforms:

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

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

2. Ethical and Practical Concerns with Digital Supervision:

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

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

3. Impact of the Pandemic on Supervisory Practices:

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

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

4. Institutional Support and Professional Development:

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

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

5. Preparedness of PhD Candidates:

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

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

6. Valuation of Supervision:

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

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

7. Suggestions for Institutional Changes:

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

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

3.2.12 Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Limitations and future research

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

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

5 Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author note

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

Data availability statement

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

Author contributions

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Conflict of interest

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

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

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary material

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

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

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

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewed by:

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

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

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

• Tips for Building Relationships with Faculty

by fms16 | Aug 14, 2024 | Advising , Resources

By Frank Sorokach

It is common for students to need a reference at some point. This can be a common need for students that are applying for a job or for graduate school. However, it’s important to build a relationship with faculty before you need a letter of recommendation.  In fact, this is true in any situation. As an example, you wouldn’t ask a boss for a recommendation letter if you never had personal communication with them.  With that in mind, you should make an effort to build relationships with your faculty. However, this can be challenging in an online program.

With that in mind, here are a few tips on how to develop relationships with faculty members. Doing these things can make it easier to reach out when you need a letter of recommendation at some point.

• Be Proactive in Communication : Reach out to your professors early in the course with an introduction email. Express your enthusiasm for the subject and ask any preliminary questions you might have about the course.
• Utilize Office Hours and other Live Sessions : Some professors offer virtual office hours or other opportunities to meet. Take advantage of these sessions to ask questions, discuss assignments, and seek advice on academic and career goals.
• Engage Actively in Discussion Forums : Participate regularly in discussion boards, where your engagement can help you stand out to professors. Professors generally pay close attention to students who make insightful posts. Contribute meaningfully to the conversations in weekly discussions.
• Be Respectful and Professional in Emails : When emailing your professors, be clear and concise, using a respectful tone. Include a proper greeting, your full name, and course details to make it easier for them to respond.
• Be Visible in Group Work : When working on group projects, take on a leadership role or contribute actively. Professors often notice students who excel in collaborative work.
• Seek Guidance on Research or Career Interests : If you have specific research interests or career goals, share them with your professor. They can offer guidance, resources, or even potential opportunities.
• Show Appreciation for Their Efforts : A simple thank you email after a helpful session or guidance can go a long way in building rapport with your professor.
• Connect on Professional Networks : Once you’ve established a good rapport, consider connecting with your professors on professional platforms like LinkedIn. This can help maintain your relationship beyond the course.

Developing strong relationships with your professors can be very easy. It simply means being proactive and professional. This will go a long way to making requests for letters of recommendations easier when the need arises.

Recent Posts

• World Campus Student Business Club Student Leadership
• Connecting Students to Alumni and Serving Alumni After Graduation
• Faculty Bio: Dr. Sarah Alhouti  
• ADA Compliance: Requesting Internship Accommodations
• Business Club
• Meet the Team
• Scholarship
• Student/Alumni Stories
• Uncategorized

Pursue Your Goal

Educators & Partners

Find content

How to Meet With Your Academic Advisor

Last updated July 29, 2024

Forming a close working relationship with your academic advisor is a great way to set yourself up for success in college. They can help you choose the right classes, succeed during challenging moments, and connect you to great academic and professional resources on campus–so it’s important to meet with them as often as you can. We show you how to meet with your academic advisor!

How to meet with your academic advisor

Every school is different, but typically at new student orientation you will be given instructions on when, where, and how to meet with an academic advisor. Some schools will assign students to an advisor, while others will require them to select their own. If you don’t receive information at orientation about when you’re supposed to meet with your advisor, you can visit your college’s website and type ‘Advising’ in the search bar. There is usually a ‘Schedule an Appointment’ or ‘Contact Us’ tab on your school’s advising homepage–follow the instructions there to learn more. If you’re living on campus, your RA can also be a great person to ask about how meeting with advisors works at your school. Once you locate contact information for your advisor, set up an appointment with them.

Before you meet

Make an appointment asap.

At some colleges, meeting with your academic advisor is required to register for and enroll in classes for the following term. Be sure to meet with them as soon as possible to avoid the chance of being waitlisted to any important classes you need to take. Even if meeting with your academic advisor is not a requirement, it's still helpful to meet with them before you register for each term to make sure you're taking the right classes and are on track to graduate. If you’re in your first year of college and haven’t declared a major yet, meeting with your advisor is so important! They can guide you on what classes to explore and ask you questions to help you narrow down your options. Think of them as a mentor there to help you reach success during your time in college!

Show up prepared

Like any meeting, showing up prepared for your appointment with your academic advisor is the best way to go. Before you meet, take some time to explore your school's course schedule and pick classes that align with your interests, goals, and most importantly, your major (if you’ve already declared one). Choose a few backup classes too, in case any of your top classes fill up quickly. This is also a good time to ask more questions about majors and programs you’re interested in, and the specific requirements to join them. Not only will being prepared for your meeting help it go much smoother (and maybe even faster), it will also help you build a trusting relationship with your advisor–arguably one of the most important ones you'll have in college!

Questions to ask your academic advisor

“can you tell me about this major i’m interested in”.

Your advisor should be familiar with many different academic programs offered at your school, so take advantage of their knowledge and ask questions about the majors you're interested in. They can also refer you to another advisor or professor who can answer more specific questions you may have about a major or program.

“What classes do you think I should take? Are there any electives that past students have loved?”

Your advisor works with lots of students at your school, so they’ll likely have an understanding of what classes they’ve loved and valued in the past, and can give you tips on choosing electives and professors.

“What kinds of careers have graduates of this major pursued in the past?”

As you think about which major to pursue, it’s good to have a general idea of the kinds of careers and job opportunities available once you graduate. Your academic advisor should be able to provide some information about what alumni have gone on to do professionally and can potentially put you in touch with someone who's working in a career that interests you !

“Are there any internships available for students pursuing this major?”

Having an internship in college is a valuable way to prepare you to pursue your career after graduating. Internships provide hands-on work experience, an opportunity to network, and maybe even an opportunity to find a professional mentor . Your advisor can refer you to internships they know of and can connect you to your school’s career center to learn about more opportunities near you.

“Can we conduct a degree audit?”

Once you've completed your first year of college, conducting a degree audit with your advisor will help you know if you're on track to complete your required credits and receive your degree on time. If something is off, they can help you make a game plan to help you get back on track.

“What should I do if I'm having a hard time in a class?”

Your academic advisor is also your college coach. They are there to support you through the highs and lows that come with school. If you find yourself struggling academically, be sure to ask them for support. They understand that you have a life and responsibilities outside of the classroom! They can work with you to address specific pain points in classes and support you in communicating with your professors if needed.

“How can I request academic accommodations?”

If you are a college student with a disability, you are legally entitled to reasonable academic accommodations. While you must initiate the process of requesting accommodations , your academic advisor can be a source of support along the way. They can guide you on gathering the necessary documentation, check in with you to ensure that your accommodations have been implemented in your classes, and advocate for you if any issues arise. If you want to ask your academic advisor about requesting accommodations, be sure to do so as soon as possible, as your accommodations may take up to one month to be implemented.

Other types of advisors on campus

Academic advisors are not the only types of advisors on college campuses. Other advisors include:

• Study abroad: Study abroad advisors work with students to find and apply for study abroad programs, finalize housing plans and visas, and support them to ensure their study abroad experience doesn't interfere with their progress toward their degree.  
• Career center: Advisors in your school’s career center support students with exploring career paths, finding jobs and internships, and preparing to start their career once they graduate.
• Clubs: Club advisors, usually college staff or faculty, support student organizations by approving budgets, overseeing events, and offering guidance and feedback.  

Requesting a new advisor

Your academic advisor should be a positive and encouraging presence in your college experience. If you don't feel supported, or if you've built a better relationship with another advisor, you may be able to switch. Each school has different processes for requesting a new advisor, so speak with your current advisor to learn how to start. Don’t feel guilty about switching advisors if you know it will benefit you in the long run— advocating for yourself is important! You want to work with someone who actively supports your academic, professional, and personal success.

Have any questions about how to work with your academic advisor? Text #College to 33-55-77 to chat with one of our advisors. If you're using a mobile device, click here to have the text message set up for you !

Other series in

Succeed in College

See all series in this goal

Let Get Schooled help you achieve your goals

What is an academic success center.

What is an academic success center? It's an amazing, free resource available to students in college. We share what you should know about your school's academic success center!

Where To Get Studying Help

We show you how and where to get studying help in college.

How to Prepare for Office Hours in College

We share tips on how to prepare for office hours in college.

Campus Resources to Help You Save Money in College

Want to save some money? Be sure to utilize these campus resources to help you save money in college.

Back-To-School Sentiment: College Students’ Perspectives On the Academic Year Ahead

Updated: Aug 14, 2024, 2:39pm

Key Takeaways

• In the fall of 2024, over 19 million college students will return to campus in person and online.
• College costs, job prospects, mental health and campus safety are on the minds of many students during back-to-school season.
• Undergraduates share their perspectives on a Forbes Advisor survey.

College students have a lot on their minds as they head back to school. What’s the right major? Will they need to take out more student loans to cover costs? What will the job market look like when they graduate?

Over 19 million college students will head back to school in fall 2024, according to projections from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). ¹ That amounts to around 39% of all 18- to 24-year-olds. ²

Many degree seekers pursue higher education to explore their interests and passions, but career and salary considerations are another powerful motivator. College graduates benefit from significantly higher weekly earnings and a lower unemployment rate, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ³ As of 2023, bachelor’s degree holders earned an average of $1,493 per week, compared with $899 for high school graduates. Additionally, a four-year degree translated into a 2.2% unemployment rate, compared with 3.9% for high school grads.

However, these benefits can come with a hefty upfront cost. College Board reports that for the 2023–2024 academic year, the average published price of tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities was $11,260 for in-state students and $29,150 for out-of-state learners, while private institutions charged an average of $41,540. ⁴

College students often rely on loans to meet these costs. In 2022, 49% of bachelor’s graduates from public schools held federal student loans, College Board notes. Those attending private institutions borrowed more often, with 52% of graduates taking out federal loans. In the second quarter of 2024, the Federal Reserve reported a total of over $1.74 billion in outstanding student loans nationwide. ⁵

With costs high and debt widespread, the pressure is on for students to make the most of their college experience. As of 2023, the college graduation rate stood at 62.2% across all schools, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. ⁶ Those who leave college without finishing their degrees may face years of student loan payments without the financial benefits that come with being a college graduate.

To dig into college students’ perspectives on the upcoming school year, Forbes Advisor conducted a survey of 1,000 college students in July 2024. The results reveal the many concerns college students are shouldering during back-to-school season.

Why You Can Trust Forbes Advisor Education

Forbes Advisor’s education editors are committed to producing unbiased rankings and informative articles covering online colleges, tech bootcamps and career paths. Our ranking methodologies use data from the National Center for Education Statistics , education providers, and reputable educational and professional organizations. An advisory board of educators and other subject matter experts reviews and verifies our content to bring you trustworthy, up-to-date information. Advertisers do not influence our rankings or editorial content.

• 6,290 accredited, nonprofit colleges and universities analyzed nationwide
• 52 reputable tech bootcamp providers evaluated for our rankings
• All content is fact-checked and updated on an annual basis
• Rankings undergo five rounds of fact-checking
• Only 7.12% of all colleges, universities and bootcamp providers we consider are awarded

Education Delivery Methods

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, a strong majority of students attended college in person. That changed during the pandemic. In the fall of 2019, 36.3% of college students took at least one online course, according to NCES data. ⁷ That number jumped to 73.4% in fall 2020. While the percentage of students taking online classes dropped to 53.3% by fall 2022, more than half of all college students now participate in distance learning.

What’s the difference between in-person, hybrid and online course delivery? Each has pros and cons for college students.

Picture the traditional college classroom, and you have a good idea of what in-person courses look like. With this option, students attend classes on campus, where they interact with faculty and classmates.

In-person classes appeal to learners who prefer more structure and face-to-face interaction. However, this format offers less flexibility because it requires class attendance at specific times and places.

Hybrid delivery—also known as blended learning—combines in-person and online courses. This delivery method allows learners to take classes on campus while also completing coursework in a flexible online format.

This is the second-most popular delivery method, according to our survey.

Online delivery gives learners the greatest flexibility. Students attend classes virtually, either by attending live sessions or watching recorded materials.

These courses often appeal to busy adults and working students. However, this format limits opportunities for interacting with faculty members and fellow students.

78% of Students Choose In-Person or Hybrid Classes Over Only Online Courses

When surveyed about their fall classes, a plurality of college students reported taking only in-person classes, while more than a third plan to enroll in both online and in-person classes. While 78% of students are taking at least some on-campus classes, 56% are taking at least some online classes.

What type of classes are you enrolled in for the fall semester?

• In-person classes: 43%
• Online classes: 21%
• A mix of in-person and online classes: 35%
• Not sure yet: 2%

Financing Higher Education

Paying for college is a major issue for students heading back to school. Degree seekers at four-year schools pay tuition and fees ranging from about $11,000 a year at public institutions to over $41,000 at private colleges and universities, according to 2023 College Board data. Fortunately, college students can qualify for many forms of financial aid.

Scholarships and Grants

More than half of students surveyed by Forbes Advisor said they plan to use scholarships, grants or financial aid to pay for college. There’s a clear advantage when it comes to scholarships and grants––unlike student loans, these awards don’t require repayment.

By maximizing scholarship and grant funding, students lower the total out-of-pocket cost of their degrees. However, it can take a lot of time to apply for federal, state, institutional and private scholarships and grants.

Student Loans and FAFSA®

Nearly three in 10 students plan to take out student loans to cover costs, according to our survey. Unlike scholarships and grants, student loans must be repaid, typically with interest.

Students submit the FAFSA to determine their eligibility for federal loans, which generally offer lower interest rates and more repayment options than private loans. The FAFSA also determines eligibility for federal grants (such as the Pell Grant), federal work-study programs and many forms of state, institutional and private financial aid.

Work-study programs connect eligible students with job opportunities that can help them cover costs. The federal work-study program, for example, places students with financial need in part-time jobs both on and off campus.

This form of financial aid lets degree seekers earn a paycheck while also gaining work experience.

More Than Half of College Students Are Funding Their Upcoming Semester Through Scholarships, Grants or Financial Aid

How are you planning to finance your education this upcoming semester?

• Scholarships, grants or financial aid: 51%
• Part-time or full-time job(s) outside of school: 42%
• Family support: 32%
• Student loans: 29%
• Personal savings: 28%
• Work study/on-campus jobs: 21%
• Not sure: 1%

Cost of Living and Educational Expenses

Tuition and fees make up a significant part of the total cost of college. But college students must also factor in other expenses, including textbooks, supplies, transportation and living costs. These expenses can add up to tens of thousands of dollars over the course of a college degree. For example, the cost of attendance at an in-state public college topped $27,000 for students who pay for their housing, according to 2022–2023 NCES data—more than $17,000 beyond the cost of tuition and fees alone. ⁸

College Students Plan To Spend an Average of $209.50 on Textbooks and Supplies This Semester

How much do you expect to spend on textbooks and supplies this upcoming semester?

• $1 to $100: 16%
• $101 to $200: 27%
• $201 to $300: 24%
• $301 to $400: 9%
• $401 to $500: 6%
• More than $500: 8%
• Average: $209.50

Regional Differences in Living Arrangements

When it comes to cost of living, college students have many options. Living on campus, off campus or at home are the most common arrangements. Our survey indicated regional differences when it comes to where college students live. Students in the Northeast are most likely to live on campus, while those in the West are most likely to live at home.

42% of College Students Plan To Live at Home This Semester

What are your living arrangements for the upcoming semester?

• On-campus housing: Total 33% / Northeast 40% / Southeast 30% / Southwest 36% / Midwest 30% / West 28%
• Off-campus housing: Total 23% / Northeast 21% / Southeast 24% / Southwest 21% / Midwest 28% / West 22%
• Living at home: Total 42% / Northeast 35% / Southeast 43% / Southwest 42% / Midwest 40% / West 50%
• Other: Total 1% / Northeast 1% / Southeast 0% / Southwest 1% / Midwest 1% / West 0%
• Not sure: Total 2% / Northeast 2% / Southeast 2% / Southwest 1% / Midwest 2% / West 1%

Mental Health Support in College

Mental health struggles are on the rise among college students, leading some observers to identify a burgeoning college mental health crisis. The 2023 Healthy Minds survey of 96,000 college students discovered historic rates of depression and anxiety, with 44% of students experiencing depression and 36% experiencing anxiety. ⁹

As a result, it’s critically important for colleges to support the mental health of their students. But what do college students think about their institutions’ mental health support resources? A majority of students in our survey––73%––said they are satisfied with the mental health support at their colleges.

Male College Students Are Generally More Satisfied With Mental Health Support Than Their Female Counterparts

How satisfied or dissatisfied do you feel about the mental health support provided by your college?

• Very satisfied: Total 34% / Male 39% / Female 32%
• Somewhat satisfied: Total 39% / Male 43% / Female 37%
• Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: Total 19% / Male 13% / Female 22%
• Somewhat dissatisfied: Total 5% / Male 4% / Female 6%
• Very dissatisfied: Total 3% / Male 1% / Female 3%

*Note that 2% of survey respondents identified their gender as “other.”

Health and Safety Concerns on College Campuses

While a majority of college students say their colleges are doing a good job with mental health, a significant number worry about health and safety on campus. According to a 2022 Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse survey, common concerns include physical safety on campus and a lack of institutional commitment to preventing sexual assault. ¹⁰ More than three in four students also reported concern about gun violence on campus.

42% of Students Are Concerned About Their Health and Safety on Campus

How concerned or unconcerned are you about your overall health and safety on campus?

• Very concerned: 15%
• Somewhat concerned: 27%
• Neither concerned or unconcerned: 30%
• Somewhat unconcerned: 16%
• Very unconcerned: 12%

Choosing a Major: Student Experiences and Trends

Declaring a major is an important college milestone. College students based their major on their interests, career prospects and advice, according to our survey. And once students choose a major, they generally stick with it.

What are the most popular majors? On graduation day in 2022, business majors made up nearly one in five graduates. Other popular majors include healthcare, social sciences, biology and psychology, according to NCES data. ¹¹

The Majority of Students Have Not Changed Their Major Since Starting College

Have you changed your major since starting college?

The Most Common Reasons for Choosing a Major

What is the primary reason you chose your current field of study/major?

• Personal passion or interest: 43%
• Career prospects and job opportunities: 17%
• Expected high salary or financial stability: 13%
• Influence or tradition in the family: 6%
• Recommendations from mentors or advisors: 5%
• Availability of scholarships or financial aid: 6%
• I am currently undecided or exploring different majors: 6%
• Not sure/can’t recall: 2%

Workforce Preparation

Both in and out of the classroom, higher education can prepare degree seekers for life after college. Many students participate in internships to gain hands-on experience. Co-op, work-study and paid work can also provide workforce preparation.

A total of 73% of our survey respondents were either currently signed up for either an internship or work-study program or planned to participate in one in the future.

Internships

Internships provide short-term work experience for college students. During an internship, participants strengthen professional skills while learning about career opportunities in their fields. Most internships also provide some form of compensation, including college credit and money.

Many college students turn to their school’s career services office or advisors in their major to find internship opportunities.

Work-study programs provide a paycheck and work experience. Eligible students often secure placements in jobs related to their fields of study.

In addition to on-campus jobs, work-study can take place off campus at nonprofit organizations, government agencies or private employers. These programs typically require proof of financial need.

Students Are Actively Planning or Participating in Internships and Work-Study Programs

Are you currently participating in or planning to participate in internships or work-study programs this upcoming semester?

• Yes, I’m currently participating: 33%
• Yes, I’m planning to participate: 40%
• No, I’m not planning on participating: 20%
• Not sure: 7%

Most Students Receive Compensation or Academic Credit for Internships or Work-Study Programs, but Some Receive None

Do the internships or work-study programs you are currently participating in or planning to participate in provide compensation?

• Monetary compensation: 34%
• Academic credit: 30%
• Both monetary compensation and academic credit: 19%
• No compensation: 7%
• Not sure: 11%

Post-Graduation Concerns

It’s not surprising that many college students worry about finding jobs. According to the College Board, around half of the class of 2022 who graduated with a bachelor’s left school with debt. ⁴ That includes 49% of public college graduates and 52% of private nonprofit graduates, with an average debt of $29,400. In addition, factors such as the strength of the economy, labor market conditions and job readiness worry students.

In our survey, 80% of college students reported concerns about landing a job after college, with just 20% saying they aren’t worried at all. Their top concerns include a lack of work experience, few jobs in their field, competition with other graduates and uncertainty about the job market.

80% of College Students Are Worried About Finding a Job After Graduation

How worried are you about finding a job after graduation?

• Extremely worried: 18%
• Moderately worried: 35%
• A little worried: 27%
• Not worried at all: 20%

Insufficient Work Experience Is the Top Concern for College Students Seeking Employment

What, if anything, is your main concern about finding a job after graduation?

• Lack of job opportunities in my field: 22%
• Insufficient work experience: 24%
• Competition with other graduates: 22%
• Uncertainty about the job market due to economic conditions: 19%
• Lack of support from career services: 5%
• Not sure: 8%

In Conclusion

College students will return to school this fall juggling competing priorities. While trying to keep their grades up and prepare for the job market, they’re also thinking about campus safety, mental health and the cost of attendance. These factors shape their academic, financial and social well-being.

When heading back to the classroom, college students may discover unexpected challenges. Undergrads might fall behind and need academic support, or stress could lead them to seek out mental health support. From the first-year students at the beginning of their higher education journeys to those graduating in the spring, back to school is both an exciting and a challenging time.

Methodology

This online survey of 1,000 Americans currently enrolled as college students was commissioned by Forbes Advisor and conducted by market research company Talker Research, in accordance with the Market Research Society’s code of conduct. Data was collected from July 5 to July 16, 2024. The margin of error is ± 3.1 point with 95% confidence. This survey was overseen by Talker Research, whose team members are members of the Market Research Society (MRS) and the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR).

• NCES, Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 through 2031
• NCES, College Enrollment Rates
• BLS, Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment, 2023
• College Board, Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2023
• Federal Reserve, Consumer Credit Outstanding (Levels)
• National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Completing College: National and State Reports
• NCES, Trend Generator
• NCES, Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution
• The Healthy Minds Study, 2022–2023 Data Report
• Inside Higher Ed X College Pulse, Campus Safety And Security Survey
• NCES, Undergraduate Degree Fields
• Postsecondary National Policy Institute, Post-Traditional Students in Higher Education

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Back-to-School

How should i prepare to go back to college.

You can prepare for going back to college by brushing up on academic skills, organizing your schedule and meeting with advisors to discuss any concerns about financial aid, academics or career planning.

How do I get back into college after taking a break?

If you’re heading back to the same college, you may be able to sign up for classes after a break. In other cases, you might need to apply for readmission.

How many people return to college after taking a break?

Millions of people return to college after taking a break. According to the Postsecondary National Policy Institute ¹² , adults over the age of 24 made up 33.4% of college students in fall 2019.

How long can you be out of college before you lose your credits?

College credits typically don’t expire. However, you might not receive credit for classes you took more than seven to 10 years ago, depending on the college and field.

Can you go back to college anytime?

Yes, you can go back to college at any time. Online classes, year-round enrollment and rolling admissions mean that you can potentially start taking classes toward a degree within a few weeks of submitting an application.

What are the benefits of going back to college?

Going back to college can increase your job opportunities and earning potential. College graduates earn higher salaries and benefit from lower unemployment.

Do you have to pay back financial aid if you drop out of college?

Yes, you have to pay back student loans if you drop out of college. When it comes to scholarships and grants, the answer depends on your specific type of funding.

What defines a successful college experience?

A successful college experience can mean academic advancement, career-ready skills and personal growth. College students can set their own goals for their college experience.

• Types Of Psychology Careers
• How Much Does A Psychologist Make?
• How To Become A Forensic Psychologist
• How To Become A Psychologist
• How To Earn An MBA Degree
• How To Become A Financial Manager
• How To Become A Marketing Manager
• How To Become A Sales Manager
• Types Of Computer Programming Jobs
• Coding Jobs – Career And Degree Options
• Are Bootcamps Worth It?
• How Much Do Data Scientists Make?
• Best Online MSW Programs 2024
• Types Of Careers In Social Work
• Everything About Social Work Careers
• How To Earn A Bachelor's In Social Work
• How To Become A Marketing Director
• How To Choose A Career In Marketing
• How To Choose A Major
• Best Soft Skills For Tech Professionals
• How To Find Remote Internships
• How To Become An Anesthesiologist
• How Long Does It Take To Become An Anesthesiologist?

What Is The ACT Test? A Complete Guide

2024 IELTS Preparation Guide

College Application Deadlines 2024

ASVAB Study Guide 2024

How To Learn German: Tips And Tricks

How To Learn Korean Online: Everything You Should Know

Genevieve Carlton holds a Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University and earned tenure at the University of Louisville. Drawing on over 15 years of experience in higher education, Genevieve provides practical, research-based advice on college degrees, career training and other higher education topics.