changing phd supervisor

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

A Guide to Changing Your PhD Supervisor

Embarking on the challenging yet rewarding journey of a PhD is a commitment that extends beyond the confines of research papers and scholarly pursuits. Central to this academic odyssey is the relationship forged with a guiding force—the PhD supervisor. A symbiotic connection that shapes the trajectory of research, personal growth, and the overall PhD experience.

However, as the academic landscape evolves, students may find themselves at a crossroads, contemplating a decision that could reshape the course of their doctoral pursuit—changing their PhD supervisor. In this exploration, we delve into the intricate fabric of this decision-making process, dissecting the reasons behind such contemplation and weighing the nuanced pros and cons associated with altering the academic compass.

Join us on this reflective journey as we navigate the delicate terrain of academic mentorship, dissecting the potential for alignment or misalignment of research interests, the dynamics of mentorship and support, and the profound impact of diverse perspectives. Yet, with change comes disruption—weighing the cost of potential setbacks in research progress, administrative hurdles, and the intricate dance of managing relationships within the academic ecosystem.

In this discourse, we aim to unravel the layers of complexity surrounding the decision to change a PhD supervisor. Through anecdotes, insights, and careful analysis, we seek to equip Ph.D. candidates with the tools needed to make informed decisions, fostering an environment where academic and personal growth can thrive.

Embark with us on this intellectual exploration, where the nuances of change intersect with the pursuit of knowledge, and the delicate dance of transition unfolds in the pursuit of academic excellence.

Introduction

Pros of changing your phd supervisor, cons of changing your phd supervisor, how to convey my supervisor regarding change of supervisor decision, download the template here.

The foundation of any successful PhD journey lies in the dynamic between the student and their supervisor. This relationship extends beyond the academic realm, shaping not only the trajectory of research but also influencing personal and professional development. A supportive and symbiotic connection with a supervisor fosters an environment where ideas flourish, guidance is paramount, and the doctoral candidate gains invaluable insights from a seasoned mentor. This relationship becomes a cornerstone, influencing the overall satisfaction and success of the Ph.D. experience.

Despite the significance of the supervisor-student relationship, there are instances when students find themselves contemplating a change. This may arise from a variety of factors such as misaligned research interests, challenges in communication, evolving career aspirations, or even shifts in personal circumstances. A brief exploration of these reasons sets the stage for understanding the complexities that prompt candidates to reassess and, potentially, redefine this pivotal connection.

At the heart of this blog post is the examination of a decision that carries both weight and consequence—the choice to change one’s PhD supervisor. The thesis of our exploration is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons associated with such a decision.

We also delve into the delicate process of communicating this decision, recognizing the sensitivity and significance of such conversations. Just as a change in academic direction requires thoughtful consideration, conveying this decision to a supervisor demands a careful blend of professionalism, gratitude, and clarity. As we navigate through the nuances of this academic crossroads, we aim to provide insights, tips, and a sample script to assist students in approaching this conversation with respect, transparency, and a focus on the academic journey ahead.

A. Alignment of Research Interests

• Examples and Anecdotes: Picture yourself passionate about unravelling the mysteries of renewable energy sources, only to find your initial supervisor specializes in historical architecture. By making the courageous decision to change supervisors, you align yourself with an expert in sustainable energy. This shift not only reignites your enthusiasm but also establishes a connection between your passion and your research, turning your academic journey into a fulfilling exploration.
• Impact on Research Productivity and Satisfaction: The impact of this alignment on research productivity and satisfaction cannot be overstated. Your newfound synergy with a supervisor who shares your research interests streamlines the process. Meetings become more fruitful, discussions more engaging, and the satisfaction derived from your work transforms from a mere academic obligation to a genuine intellectual pursuit.

B. Better Mentorship and Support

• Illustrative Cases: Consider the case of Sarah, who initially struggled with a lack of communication and mentorship in her first year. Changing supervisors led her to Dr. Rodriguez, known for her hands-on mentoring approach. This shift not only transformed Sarah’s academic journey but also instilled a sense of confidence and direction, illustrating the profound impact of effective mentorship.
• Personal and Academic Development: The metamorphosis brought about by improved mentorship extends beyond academic realms. Dr. Rodriguez’s investment in Sarah’s personal and academic growth not only refined her research skills but also nurtured her self-confidence. Sarah emerged from this mentorship with a more profound understanding of her strengths and a fortified sense of academic purpose.

C. Diverse Perspectives

• Experiences of Gaining Different Perspectives: Enter the world of Alex, who transitioned from a supervisor entrenched in qualitative research to one with a robust quantitative background. This shift opened avenues for Alex to integrate diverse methodologies, leading to a more comprehensive and nuanced research approach. The amalgamation of these perspectives not only enriched the research process but also broadened Alex’s intellectual horizons.
• Enrichment of Research and Academic Growth: The exposure to diverse perspectives became the catalyst for academic growth. Engaging with varied viewpoints became a cornerstone of Alex’s intellectual development. This enrichment not only strengthened the quality of the research but also equipped Alex with a versatile set of skills crucial for navigating the intricate landscape of academia.

D. Career Opportunities

• Stories of Enhanced Opportunities: Meet James, who, through a change in supervisor, found himself immersed in collaborative projects and international conferences. This shift not only enhanced his academic portfolio but also created avenues for industry collaborations. The diverse experiences gained under the new supervision became stepping stones for James’s future career opportunities.
• Broadening Professional Networks: Changing supervisors often means entering new academic circles. In Lily’s case, this shift broadened her professional networks, exposing her to different conferences, workshops, and collaborative opportunities. The ripple effect of these connections extended beyond the academic realm, positioning Lily for a more expansive and interconnected professional journey.

E. Personal Growth

• Adapting to New Challenges: Imagine the story of Mark, who faced unforeseen challenges upon changing supervisors. The adjustment period, though daunting, became a testament to Mark’s adaptability. This ability to navigate uncharted waters not only demonstrated resilience but also contributed to Mark’s personal growth, reinforcing his capacity to thrive amidst academic uncertainties.
• Building Resilience and Adaptability: Mark’s journey highlights that personal growth extends beyond the realm of academia. The challenges faced during the transition nurtured not only resilience but also adaptability. These qualities, now ingrained in Mark’s academic persona, serve as invaluable assets not just for his PhD journey but for his future professional endeavours.

A. Disruption in Progress

• Impact on Research Timeline: Consider the case of Emily, who, midway through her PhD, changed supervisors due to a shift in research focus. This transition resulted in a temporary disruption in her research timeline as she needed to recalibrate her methodologies and refine her research questions. The adjustments, while necessary for alignment, extended the overall duration of her Ph.D. project.
• Strategies for Minimizing Disruptions: To minimize disruptions, Emily proactively engaged in regular communication with both her previous and new supervisors. This strategic approach allowed for a smoother transition, as she could carry forward valuable insights from her initial work while incorporating the guidance of her new supervisor. Open and transparent communication became the cornerstone for mitigating the impact on her research timeline.

B. Administrative Hassles

• Navigating University Procedures: John’s decision to change his supervisor involved navigating complex university procedures. From obtaining approvals to filling out paperwork, the administrative process proved to be a bureaucratic challenge. The intricacies of university protocols can be time-consuming and stressful, adding an administrative layer to an already nuanced decision.
• Addressing Logistical Challenges: John tackled administrative hassles by seeking guidance from academic advisors and administrative staff. Proactive planning and careful adherence to university guidelines helped streamline the administrative process. By addressing logistical challenges promptly, John mitigated the bureaucratic hurdles associated with changing supervisors.

C. Limited Options

• Challenges in Finding a Suitable Alternative: Amy faced the challenge of limited options when searching for an alternative supervisor. The specialized nature of her research narrowed the pool of available academics with expertise in her field. This limitation created a dilemma, as finding a suitable alternative proved to be a meticulous process requiring careful consideration of academic compatibility.
• Exploring Available Options within the Institution: Amy expanded her search by exploring potential supervisors within her institution who had overlapping interests. Collaborating with academic advisors and department heads, she identified alternative mentors who could provide the necessary guidance. While challenging, this exploration within the institution allowed Amy to make a well-informed choice, considering both expertise and compatibility.

D. Potential for Miscommunication

• Addressing Communication Challenges During the Transition: Michael encountered communication challenges when transitioning to a new supervisor, leading to misunderstandings regarding research expectations. The potential for miscommunication became apparent during the initial stages of the transition, affecting the clarity of project goals and timelines.
• Strategies for Clear Communication: Recognizing the importance of clear communication, Michael initiated regular meetings with the new supervisor. Setting clear expectations, discussing project milestones, and seeking feedback became integral components of their communication strategy. By addressing potential miscommunication head-on, Michael established a foundation for a more effective working relationship.

E. Impact on Relationships

• Navigating Interpersonal Dynamics with the Previous Supervisor and Colleagues: When Emma changed supervisors, she faced the delicate task of navigating interpersonal dynamics with her previous supervisor and colleagues. This transition required tact and diplomacy, as maintaining positive relationships with the academic community was crucial for a harmonious academic environment.
• Maintaining a Positive Academic Environment: Emma proactively engaged in open and honest conversations with her previous supervisor, expressing gratitude for the mentorship received. She also communicated transparently with colleagues about her decision, emphasizing that the change was driven by research alignment. By approaching the transition with professionalism and respect, Emma succeeded in maintaining a positive academic environment, fostering goodwill among her peers.

1. Choose the Right Time and Setting:

• Schedule a meeting with your current supervisor in a private and comfortable setting.
• Ensure that you have enough time for a thorough discussion without interruptions.

2. Be Prepared:

• Reflect on your decision and be clear about your reasons for wanting to change supervisors.
• Consider preparing a brief outline or notes to help you articulate your thoughts during the conversation.

3. Start Positively:

• Begin the conversation on a positive note by expressing your appreciation for the guidance and support you have received so far.
• Acknowledge the contributions of your current supervisor to your academic journey.

4. Be Honest and Direct:

• Clearly state your decision to change supervisors. Use straightforward language to avoid any ambiguity.
• If applicable, briefly explain the reasons behind your decision. Focus on academic or research-related factors rather than personal issues.

5. Highlight Your Goals:

• Emphasize that your decision is driven by your academic and research goals. Highlight the importance of aligning your research interests with your supervisor to ensure a more productive collaboration.

6. Express Gratitude:

• Express gratitude for the time and effort your current supervisor has invested in your academic development.
• Reinforce that your decision is about finding the best possible fit for your research objectives.

7. Offer Solutions:

• If applicable, suggest potential solutions or ways to ease the transition. This could include a plan for completing any ongoing projects or assisting in the search for a replacement.

8. Be Open to Discussion:

• Encourage an open dialogue. Allow your supervisor to express their thoughts and ask questions.
• Be receptive to feedback and be willing to discuss any concerns your supervisor may have.

9. Follow Up in Writing:

• After the meeting, send a follow-up email reiterating your decision and expressing gratitude.
• Include any agreed-upon next steps or arrangements for a smooth transition.

10. Maintain Professionalism:

• Throughout the conversation, maintain a professional and respectful tone.
• Avoid placing blame or speaking negatively about your current supervisor.

Sample Script:

“Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I want to express my sincere appreciation for your guidance and support during our collaboration. After careful consideration, I have made the decision to change supervisors. This decision is driven by a desire to align my research interests more closely with my academic goals. I believe this change will contribute positively to my academic journey. I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition and am open to discussing any concerns or suggestions you may have. I value the time we’ve spent working together and appreciate your understanding.”

Remember that communication is key in these situations, and approaching the conversation with professionalism and clarity will contribute to a more constructive dialogue.

Email Template to Convey Your Decision to Change Supervisor

Subject: Request for a Meeting to Discuss Research Direction

Dear [Supervisor’s Name],

I trust this message finds you well. I appreciate the support and guidance you have provided throughout our collaboration. Your insights have been invaluable to my academic journey.

After careful consideration and reflection, I have come to the decision to explore a change in my supervisory arrangement. This decision is rooted in my commitment to align my research interests more closely with my academic goals, and I believe that a different supervisory dynamic may better support the direction I intend to take with my research.

I would like to request a meeting to discuss this matter further. I believe that an open and honest conversation will allow us to explore the best path forward. I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition and would like to discuss any concerns or suggestions you may have. Your feedback is important to me, and I want to ensure that this decision is made with the utmost professionalism and consideration.

I propose we schedule a meeting at your earliest convenience. Please let me know a time that works for you, and I will make the necessary arrangements.

Thank you once again for your support, and I look forward to discussing this matter with you.

Best regards,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Program/Department]

[Your Contact Information]

Read my article on ” Can you do a PhD without a supervisor” . This article will guide you on how one can do PhD without a research supervisor.

In the intricate tapestry of a Ph.D. journey, the decision to change supervisor stands as a pivotal crossroads, demanding careful contemplation and strategic navigation. As we explored the myriad facets of this complex choice, it became evident that the pros and cons are as diverse as the academic landscapes each student traverses.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• Top 10 AI-Based Research Paper Abstract Generators
• EditPad Research Title Generator: Is It Helpful to Create a Title for Your Research?
• Are Postdoctoral Fellowships Taxable? A Guide to Understanding Tax Implications
• How to Get Off-Cycle Research/Academic Internships
• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

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

Tress Academic

#98: Should I replace my PhD supervisor?

September 28, 2021 by Tress Academic

Are you experiencing problems with your PhD supervisor? Are you not receiving the support you need, or have you been exposed to misconduct? Have you thought about changing your supervisor for some time, but can’t make up your mind? Are you uncertain whether it is even possible to replace your supervisor and if so, how to kick-off the process? In this blogpost, we’ll give you an overview of why PhD students typically change advisors, how difficult it might be, and whether it is the right thing to do in your situation.  

Some time ago, we received the following message from one of our course participants, which inspired us to write this blogpost:

“Hi there! I’ve struggled for quite a long time with the problem of whether and how to change my supervisor. In my opinion, we’re not the best “team”. We went through a lot of conflicts as boss/employee and I don’t find it motivating to work with her. But still I struggle with just ‘quitting’ and changing the advisor, as I think that she won’t be happy about that, and I fear that the ‘loss’ of a PhD-candidate would surely be understood as threatening at face-value for her as an advisor. In my experience, she is not of the understanding or empathetic kind, but rather resentful.

So, I need your advice in handling the situation.

Kind regards, L.”

Because we know that problems with a supervisor are tricky to handle for PhD candidates, we want to give L., and everyone else who is in a similar situation, our advice. We’ll let you know what makes PhD candidates want to change advisors, what you should consider in the process, and whether it makes sense in your situation or not. Good supervision is extremely important, so overcoming some obstacles in order to replace a ‘less than good’ supervisor can be absolutely worthwhile! 

1. Most are happy with their supervision, but some are not

To keep things in perspective at this point, we should mention that the majority of PhD candidates are rather happy and satisfied with the supervision they receive. But working with PhD candidates over the past 14 years, we’ve also encountered some for whom this is not the case. They are in a situation where they experience problems with one or several of their supervisors. There are surveys that back-up this overall observation. Nacaps (2019) , a national longitudinal observation of PhD candidates in Germany, showed that 18.6 % are not satisfied with their supervisory situation. In the Helmholtz Juniors Survey Report (2019) , there are 25.3% of PhD candidates who are in the categories ‘rather unsatisfied’ to ‘very unsatisfied’ with their supervision. See also Nature’s 2019 PhD survey. 

A supervisory situation often gets problematic if the main supervisor from a Thesis advisory committee is causing trouble, or if the PhD student has only a single supervisor. 

A high percentage of PhD students today are enrolled in structured PhD programmes where supervisory committees consisting of 3 or more supervisors are mandatory. In principle, this is a great way to counterbalance weaknesses of individuals and ensure a high quality of supervision overall. However, problems often occur if the main supervisors are not living up to their supervisory duties. 

Also, there are still PhD candidates who pursue individual projects and have only a single supervisor, which increases the dependency on that one person. If that supervisor fails to give good supervision, the PhD student flounders, and may be left with virtually no support. 

2. Reasons why PhD students want to replace a supervisor 

There are plenty of reasons why a PhD student wants or has to exchange an advisor. Many universities and research institutes or governmental bodies have set out codes of conduct for PhD/graduate education that describe roles and responsibilities of supervisors (see e.g. UniWiND 2015 , UCL 2018 , National Health and Medical Research Council Australia 2019, University of Edinburgh 2021 ). Violation of these commonly accepted principles often constitutes a reason for a change of supervisor. 

In our blog post no. 10: Good PhD-supervision , we discuss 5 pillars of great supervision and describe what you can expect from a good supervisor. 

Below, we’ve listed some illustrative examples which highlight typical reasons you may want to replace your supervisor. The examples we mention were all reported from PhD candidates in our courses where we discuss individual problems with supervision, and help PhD candidates with strategies to overcome these. If you’re interested in benefiting from our support as well, check out the PhD success Lab . Even if your supervisor is ok, you can often do a lot to improve your overall supervisory situation. 

Lack of supervision or poor supervision

A lack of supervision includes insufficient guidance and support and irregular interaction or feedback on the progress of a PhD project. A clear sign of a lack of supervision is if one does not have regular meetings with a PhD supervisor (e.g. meetings only happen twice a year), if meetings are sporadic rather than regular, and if no substantial feedback on work or progress is given. Insufficient encouragement and interest in the PhD candidates work are further factors (see also Helmholtz Juniors 2019 , p. 22). 

If you want to check how your supervision stacks up, check our free worksheet ‘How good is my PhD supervision’ , in which we list key factors that allow you to assess the quality of your supervision.

Supervisor is not an expert in your field

It is possible that asupervisor is not an expert in the area in which the PhD student works. This can happen if a PhD advisor was originally allocated for administrative reasons (rather than scientific expertise) or if the PhD student’s project develops in a different direction over time. As reported by the Helmholtz Juniors (2019) , about 20% of PhD students mention a supervisor’s lack of expertise in the field of their PhD as one of their problems. Also Helfer et al. (2019) , cite it as one point of dissatisfaction with supervisors. 

Clash of personalities

In this case, the personal chemistry between you and the supervisor is off. You are e.g. hyper-organised and your supervisor is the chaotic one, coming up with new ideas for your research in every meeting, dwarfing any of your attempts to maintain focus. Or you need a lot of freedom to pursue your own ideas, but you have a supervisor who is a micromanager, and wants to be involved in every single step you take, leading to endless discussions and delay in your PhD process. There are fundamental character traits or ways to work that do not match well, and are a reason for perpetual annoyance – often on both sides.

Questionable research practice or scientific misconduct

Many Higher Education Institutions, funding agencies, or governmental bodies have developed codes of good scientific practice (see e.g. Australian Government (2007) , Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014) , Swedish Research Council (2017) , German Research Foundation (2019) , UK Research Integrity Office . These lay out guidelines of how research should be conducted, how data should be handled, ethical principles in research that must be considered, how results are published, and how junior researchers must be treated and evaluated – these are broader than the codes of conduct for supervision that we mentioned above. If a supervisor engages in behaviour calls into question these commonly acknowledged practices, or violates them, this will negatively impact the PhD candidate, the quality of their research, and their relationship. As just one example: A supervisor of one of the PhD participants in our courses published an article with data from the PhD candidates’ research without that person’s knowledge or consent. The results that were published would have constituted part of the PhD candidates’ thesis.  

Harassment, discrimination, or abuse 

Harassment, discrimination, or abuse, even in milder forms, constitute a breach of good scientific practice. Like any workplace, scientific institutions are not free from misbehaviour from (in this case) superiors. Strict hierarchical settings and tough competition may exacerbate bullying behaviour or abuse of power (see Max Planck PhDnet, 2018 ). As an example: One South American PhD candidate had to endure constant negative comments about her background and ability to perform by her supervisor. Quotes like ‘you are a latino, they usually work hard, but you are an exception’, where part of the regular communication. Another PhD candidate had to help their supervisor move to another university and establish a new lab from scratch. Months passed with moving goods, ordering parts and equipment. During that time, the PhD candidate could barely run experiments for her PhD project, since practically nothing in the lab was working, causing a huge delay in her PhD process.  

3. Is it difficult to change a supervisor?

In most cases, a change of supervisor is possible, but there are a few things that need consideration. 

Formal or legal aspects:

Some universities or graduate schools have formal proceedings for an exchange of supervisors anchored in their PhD regulations (or elsewhere) which are publicly available. In such a case, there is transparency around the process and you will be able to find out what you have to do and who you need to talk to in order to change yours. For one good example that sets out clear guidelines, see Griffith University’s (2019) Code of Practice for the Supervision of Higher Degree Research Candidates .  

The most progressive or advantageous of PhD regulations will e.g. mention that you can add or exchange members of your thesis advisory committee at any point in time during your PhD. In this case, giving notice to the graduate school that you would like to change one of your supervisors and follow the outlined procedures is all that is needed. 

If no policies or formal proceedings exist however, the process of how a supervisor can be replaced is in the dark, and that can ultimately make it more difficult to get what you want. 

Financing of your PhD:

In the event that your PhD is financed by a third party funded project of your supervisor, or they are in any other way financing your PhD, a change might be tricky. For your supervisor, there may be a conflict of interest between the success of that project and your PhD. You will only benefit if you can change your supervisor and keep your PhD position and funding and can keep working on the same PhD project. That can surely be sorted out, but it might need a bit more discussion to come to a mutually beneficial solution. 

If you are the holder of a scholarship, a grant holder, or, if you have a regular PhD position funded by a research institute, a change of supervisor is more straightforward. In this case, the financing is independent from the supervisor. 

Personal aspects:

Of course impacts to your personal and professional life play a role as well. Like in the above example, many PhD candidates are afraid of the conflict that will occur once they speak up, and the damage this might do to the reputation of their supervisor. 

How the personal aspects work out depends to a large degree on how the entire process is handled. If it is done well, the damage can be limited and no one has to lose face. Many arrangements are possible, and depending on the reasons for the change, the parties can also determine what is and is not made public. Supervisors may also be relieved that they can end a supervisory relationship with a PhD candidate they knew was unhappy with their guidance, and are glad that a colleague will take over. 

So in conclusion, in most cases it is possible to replace a supervisor. Universities have formal proceedings that take place in order to exchange a supervisor and it might happen more often than you think. 

4. Is it the right thing for you to replace your supervisor?

Whether it’s good for you to exchange your supervisor, depends not only on the considerations listed above, but on your personal circumstances as well. Don’t rush it, but eventually try to arrive at a decision, after carefully balancing the pros and cons. Some personal factors that you should think about, before replacing yours, are the following:

How far in the PhD process are you?

 If you’re right at the start and you already notice that things aren’t going well, it is certainly worth the effort to try and get another supervisor. In contrast, if you’ve only got a few months left until submitting your dissertation, you might decide to just ‘live’ with a not-so-good supervisor, finish, and move on. 

How much does the problem with your supervisor impact the quality of your PhD?

Would you be significantly better-off with another person? Does this require a replacement of your main supervisor? Or could a great co-supervisor be added to the team? See our blog post no. 68 for suggestions on how to pick the perfect co-supervisor .

How much do you suffer personally?

How much does the problem with your supervisor affect your ability to work, and your potential to do excellent research? How much does it influence your well-being and your life? 

Does it jeopardise your PhD completion?

For us, the ultimate question to ask is always the following: If you don’t change your supervisor and just continue as is, would your PhD completion be in danger? If that is a clear ‘yes,’ then a change of supervisor is on the agenda. 

PhD candidates often wait too long before they initiate the process of changing supervisors. Some only speak up about a problem when they literally can’t take it any more and are desperate. Don’t wait that long! If you realise that you are suffering from poor supervision, by any means, change your supervisor if it will help you do better research and have a happier PhD life. PhD candidates who went through an exchange of supervisors often tell us later how relieved they were, how much more positive they experienced their PhD life to be, and that it gave a big boost to their motivation to complete their project. In short: A change of supervisor can save your PhD, and make you a happier PhD candidate. 

If you want to know more about how to overcome difficulties and have a happier PhD process, sign up to our free webinar for PhD candidates.

Related resources:

• blog post no. 10: Good PhD-supervision: what you can expect.
• blog post no. 68: PhD Support: How to pick the perfect co-supervisor.  
• free worksheet ‘How good is my PhD supervision’ .

References:

• Australian Government 2007: Australian Code for the responsible conduct of research.  
• National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia (2019): Supervision. A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
• Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014): Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.  
• DZHW, Nacaps (2019): 1. Welle Promovierendenbefragung 2019 (Kohorte 2018)  
• German Research Foundation (2019): Code of Conduct “Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice.”  
• Griffith University (2019): Code of Practice for the Supervision of Higher Degree Research Candidates
• Helfer, F. Drew, S. (2019): Students’ Perceptions of Doctoral Supervision: A Study in an Engineering Program in Australia. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 499-524.  
• Helmholtz Juniors (2019): Survey Report.
• Max Planck PhDnet, 2018: Position Paper on Power Abuse and Conflict Resolution. 
• Nature Work/Careers (2019): PhD POLL reveals fear and joy, contentment and anguish. Nature Work/Careers. Vol 575, 14 November 2019, p. 403-406. 
• Swedish Research Council (2017): Good research practice.  
• University College London (UCL) (2018): The UCL Good Supervision Guide. A guide for new and experienced supervisors.
• University of Edinburgh 2021: Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students.
• UniWiND (2015): Doctoral Supervision. Recommendations and good practice for universities and doctoral supervisors. UniWiND Publications, Iss. 4.

More information

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

© 2021 Tress Academic

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

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

Catherine Bannon

J. scott p. mccain, introduction.

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

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

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

Rule 1: Align research interests

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

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

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

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

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

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

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

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

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

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

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

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

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

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

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

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

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

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

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

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

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

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

Rule 9: Trust your gut

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

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

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

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

Brazil’s plummeting graduate enrolments hint at declining interest in academic science careers

Career News 21 MAY 24

How religious scientists balance work and faith

Career Feature 20 MAY 24

How to set up your new lab space

Career Column 20 MAY 24

Lack of effective intercultural communication is hobbling academia — fix it for research equity

Correspondence 21 MAY 24

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

News Feature 21 MAY 24

Guidelines for academics aim to lessen ethical pitfalls in generative-AI use

Nature Index 22 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

Full Professorship (W3) in “Organic Environmental Geochemistry (f/m/d)

The Institute of Earth Sciences within the Faculty of Chemistry and Earth Sciences at Heidelberg University invites applications for a   FULL PROFE...

Heidelberg, Brandenburg (DE)

Universität Heidelberg

Postdoc: deep learning for super-resolution microscopy

The Ries lab is looking for a PostDoc with background in machine learning.

Vienna, Austria

University of Vienna

Postdoc: development of a novel MINFLUX microscope

The Ries lab is developing super-resolution microscopy methods for structural cell biology. In this project we will develop a fast, simple, and robust

Postdoctoral scholarship in Structural biology of neurodegeneration

A 2-year fellowship in multidisciplinary project combining molecular, structural and cell biology approaches to understand neurodegenerative disease

Umeå, Sweden

Umeå University

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

• A t tachments (0)
• Page History
• Page Information
• Resolved comments
• View in Hierarchy
• View Source
• Export to PDF
• Export to Word
• Hide Inline Comments

Changing Supervisors during your PhD

• Created by Tom Atchity , last modified by Melanie R Gulick on Mar 04, 2024

At certain points during a student's PhD Career, it may become necessary for a student to change their PhD Supervisor.  A student is free to change their PhD Supervisor without retaliation.  Professors understand that students sometimes change their Supervisor.  Making an appointment to talk with the Graduate Advising Team about possibly changing your PhD Supervisor as soon as you begin thinking about it is a wise choice.  Having assurance can relieve unnecessary stress and give you confidence about your decision to proceed, to wait, or to remain with your current PhD Supervisor.

For students who find themselves ready to make a change, we ask that you do the following steps...

1) Please contact our Graduate Program Administrator Tom Atchity ([email protected]) once you determine that you will be changing supervisors. Tom will schedule a brief in-person appointment with you to chat about next steps.

2) Once you have identified a new PhD Supervisor, we ask that you fill out a Doctoral Registration Form with your new supervisor. This will give you and your new PhD supervisor the opportunity to review your current coursework and research progress, as well as your current and future funding status.

If you have any questions about this process, please feel free to discuss with the Graduate Advising Team.

• Powered by Atlassian Confluence 7.19.17 (10.0.60.17: 36076079)
• Printed by Atlassian Confluence 7.19.17
• Report a bug
• Atlassian News

• Log in
• Site search

Choosing your PhD supervisor

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

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

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

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

How do I find a PhD supervisor?

You should identify academics actively researching in your field by:

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

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

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

How do I approach a potential supervisor?

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

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

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

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

How do I make a good impression?

If an academic agrees to meet you, they'll be aiming to discover whether you have the passion, tenacity and academic potential to complete a PhD. This means that conveying your determination to complete such an arduous research project is an absolute necessity.

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

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

What qualities does a good supervisor possess?

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

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

How do I develop a good relationship with my supervisor?

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

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

The University of Leicester recommends that you should also:

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

What can my supervisor help me with?

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

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

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

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

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

Find out more

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

How would you rate this page?

On a scale where 1 is dislike and 5 is like

• Dislike 1 unhappy-very
• Like 5 happy-very

Thank you for rating the page

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.

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

This post explains the difference between the journal paper status of In Review and Under Review.

Impostor Syndrome is a common phenomenon amongst PhD students, leading to self-doubt and fear of being exposed as a “fraud”. How can we overcome these feelings?

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

Browse PhDs Now

Reference management software solutions offer a powerful way for you to track and manage your academic references. Read our blog post to learn more about what they are and how to use them.

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

Christine is entering the 4th year of her PhD Carleton University, researching worker’s experiences of the changing conditions in the Non Profit and Social Service sector, pre and during COVID-19.

Bijou is a second year MD-PhD candidate, starting her second year of medical school. At the end of this academic year she’ll transition into doing a genetics PhD full time at Case Western Reserve University.

Join Thousands of Students

“I didn’t want to be a troublemaker” – doctoral students’ experiences of change in supervisory arrangements

Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education

ISSN : 2398-4686

Article publication date: 4 October 2021

Issue publication date: 23 March 2022

During the lengthy process of PhD studies, supervisory changes commonly occur for several different reasons, but their most frequent trigger is a poor supervisory relationship. Even though a change in supervisors is a formal bureaucratic process and not least the students’ rights, in practice it can be experienced as challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore how doctoral students experience a change in supervisory arrangements.

Design/methodology/approach

This study highlights the voices of 19 doctoral students who experienced at least one supervisory change during their doctoral studies.

The findings were structured chronologically, revealing the students’ experiences prior, during and after the changes. In total, 12 main themes were identified. Most of the interviewed students experienced the long decision-making processes as stressful, difficult and exhausting, sometimes causing a lack of mental well-being. However, once the change was complete, they felt renewed, energized and capable of continuing with their studies. It was common to go through more than one change in supervisory arrangements. Further, the students described both the advantages of making a change yet also the long-lasting consequences of this change that could affect them long after they had completed their PhD programs.

Originality/value

The study fulfills an identified need to investigate the understudied perspective of doctoral students in the context of change in supervisory arrangements. A change in the academic culture is needed to make any changes in supervisory arrangements more acceptable thus making PhD studies more sustainable.

• Thematic analysis
• Doctoral student
• Student experience
• Supervisory change

Schmidt, M. and Hansson, E. (2022), "“I didn’t want to be a troublemaker” – doctoral students’ experiences of change in supervisory arrangements", Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education , Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 54-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-02-2021-0011

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Manuela Schmidt and Erika Hansson.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

“Yes, I think a big lesson is that [change] does not have to be [so dramatic]. Okay, it was a bit dramatic [in my case], maybe, but really […] it doesn’t need to be that dramatic to change supervisors. It's just […] It's like just filling out a form. And I think it's important to understand as a doctoral student that it's actually one's right to change supervisors. You are allowed to do that. And I also think that many supervisors think that they are sitting on some kind of knowledge that no one else can convey, but in most cases, there are 20 other potential supervisors who are in line.” (interview 19)

PhD education is often compared to a journey, a roller coaster ride or even white water rafting (Schmidt and Umans, 2014 ; Christie et al. , 2008 ). Many different factors can influence a doctoral student’s experiences either positively or negatively and these experiences can change rapidly. On this journey, a student’s relationship with her/his supervisor is often singled out as the most important factor for the success of PhD studies. The supervisors and the relationship with them play a central role not only in the doctoral students’ outcomes such as degree of completion and attrition but also in the students’ overall experience and satisfaction with the program (Pyhältö et al. , 2015 ; Barnes et al. , 2010 ; Devos et al. , 2017 ). When the relationship between doctoral students and supervisors is experienced as something positive and empowering, the two parties are engaged in the process of mutual learning and the more academic seniors enable socialization and acculturation of the juniors into academic life and practices (Lee, 2020 ; Mendoza, 2007 ). However, the relationship with the supervisor may also have the potential to develop into something more negative, even to the extent that it might be experienced as destructive by the students. Negative relationships with the supervisors can be primarily explained by the expectation gap where the two parties might prioritize different things. For example, doctoral students might view social support from their supervisors and interaction with them to be the highest priority (Basturkmen et al. , 2014 ), while the supervisors might perceive the importance of financial resources and student characteristics such as motivation and an internal locus of control to be of the highest priority (Gardner, 2009 ).

Remaining in an “unhappy” supervisory relationship;

Quitting; and

Opting for a change in supervisors.

A limited number of studies focus on the choice to remain in an unhappy supervisory relationship (Barnes et al. , 2010 ; Kulikowski et al. , 2019 ; Al Makhamreh and Stockley, 2019 ; Owens et al. , 2020 ). Those studies usually focus on “overcoming” and emphasize doctoral students’ pride in succeeding despite negative experiences and supervisory problems (Bryan and Guccione, 2018 ). Most of the studies explore the second choice – quitting, which is also referred to as attrition. The interest in this choice may be particularly motivated by soaring attrition rates of up to 50% in PhD programs (Groenvynck et al. , 2013 ) and indications of many doctoral students considering quitting their PhD studies (Sowell et al. , 2008 ; Cornér et al. , 2017 ; Schmidt and Hansson, 2018 ) with a poor supervisory relationship being the primary reason (Jacks et al. , 1983 ).

Although supervision issues were considered the most researched topic in a review in 2018 (Sverdlik et al. , 2018 ), very few studies report on the third choice – change in supervisory arrangements and doctoral students’ experiences who make that choice (Wisker and Robinson, 2013 ; McAlpine et al. , 2012 ). These nascent studies describe doctoral students’ experiences of supervisory change in terms of confusion, rejections and traumatization. They suggest that the change adds to the students’ insecurities, decreases their well-being (Wisker and Robinson, 2013 ; McAlpine et al. , 2012 ) and has long lasting effects on their careers. According to Wisker and Robinson (2013) , further exploration of the topic from the doctoral students’ perspective is needed. This is important, as doctoral students’ negative experiences in the supervisory process in general and of a supervisory change in particular, might be fundamental in shaping the future roles that doctoral students will play in academia and society at large (Barnes et al. , 2010 ; Schmidt and Hansson, 2018 ).

Responsibilities, duties and supervisors and doctoral students’ expectations are often loosely defined or are lacking at the university level and differ between different national contexts (Barnett et al. , 2017 ). For example, in Sweden, the higher education ordinance (SFS, 1993 ), clearly regulates a change of supervisors and states it as a doctoral student’s right. Yet, in general, implementation of supervisory change remains to be an ambiguous process. This ambiguity could be one of the reasons that contribute to the negative experiences of supervisory change, often felt as some sort of failure by one or both parties involved (Wisker and Robinson, 2012 ; Wisker and Robinson, 2013 ). Even if both parties do not enter into supervisory relationships with anticipation to change, change in supervisory arrangements is common and happens for various reasons such as retirement, change of workplace or relocation of a supervisor or difficulties in supervisory relationships (Wisker and Robinson, 2012 ). Further, models of doctoral student supervision vary across countries and PhD programs (Paul et al. , 2014 ). Yet, most commonly discussed in the literature is co-supervision, also referred to as joint or team supervision. In this study, co-supervision implies supervision of one doctoral student by two or more supervisors, of which one is appointed as main or principal supervisor. Roles and responsibilities among supervisors might differ depending on supervisory constellation, can change over time and are often individually agreed on among the supervisors. A plethora of studies so far has focused on the concept of supervision, the nature of the relationship between doctoral students and supervisors and supervisors’ styles (Lee, 2020 ; Gatfield, 2005 ; Murphy et al. , 2007 ; Gurr, 2001 ). Yet, most of these studies focus on the supervisors’ perspective and shun discussing doctoral students’ experiences. Taking a rather positive view, these studies fail to consider that supervision itself might not be the solution for the issues experienced by the doctoral students, but instead can be a cause of the problems, thus overlooking students’ negative and damaging experiences of supervision (Wisker and Robinson, 2013 ).

With an increasing number of doctoral students entering tertiary education (The World Bank [Unesco Institute for Statistics], 2020 ; Shin et al. , 2018 ), this occupational group has been gaining more attention and rights. Given these gains, doctoral students have become increasingly demanding of their supervisors, expecting them to be trustworthy, good listeners, encouraging, having faith in the student and being knowledgeable and informative (Denicolo, 2004 ; Barnes et al. , 2010 ). Although these demands can be exhausting for supervisors, they can be explained by doctoral students feeling disoriented, being aware of their dependency position and stressed about juggling competing expectations and financing their studies. From the doctoral students’ perspective, to express dissatisfaction with a senior researcher remains to be a challenging and delicate matter due to dependency issues. However, despite the initial stress and negative emotions because of a change in supervisory arrangements, it may also represent the possibility of a new start (Wisker and Robinson, 2012 ). With increasing demands by employees for better work conditions in academia and elsewhere (Schmidt and Hansson, 2018 ; Dobre, 2013 ), doctoral students – mindful of their well-being – might be gradually more weary of remaining in poor supervisory relationships that have shown to decrease their work and life satisfaction (Schmidt and Hansson, 2018 ; Evans et al. , 2018 ; Cornér et al. , 2017 ), and thus, are more prone to opt for supervisory change. It is, therefore, important to highlight the students’ perspectives and experiences of this process. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore how doctoral students experience a change in supervisory arrangements.

Material and methods

The study follows a qualitative, explorative design, which is considered suitable for exploring human experiences including people’s perceptions, opinions and feelings to shed light on the phenomenon of interest.

Sweden as a context of this study

In Sweden, PhD studies comprise 240 European credit transfer and accumulation system credits (equivalent to four years of full-time studies). Teaching is often part of doctoral students’ curricula when they are employed by a university, which can prolong their studies by one to two years. The number of newly enrolled doctoral students and those taking their doctoral degrees during 2018 was similar, coming to a total of around 17,000 doctoral students (SCB [ Statistics Sweden], 2019 ). No gender differences were reported among them in 2018. Of those who started their studies in 2010, 75% gained their degrees after eight years ( SCB [Statistics Sweden], 2019 ). The median age of the students was 32 years. As the majority (64%) of doctoral students are financed by being employed at a university ( SCB [Statistics Sweden], 2019 ), PhD candidates need to apply for the position in competition and cannot choose their supervisors when enrolling. Instead, supervisors and project leaders choose their doctoral students. For supervising a doctoral student in Sweden, one needs to have a PhD. Some universities also mandate completing a doctoral supervisor training course ranging from a few days to a few weeks.

Participants

Participants were recruited by applying purposeful sampling in combination with snowball strategy. Inclusion criteria for participation were being currently enrolled or having been enrolled at a Swedish university for a PhD program (graduation no later than 2010) and having experienced a change in supervisory arrangements. In total, 26 doctoral students were asked to participate in the study of which 19 agreed. Of the remainder, three did not reply and four declined participation.

To start with, three former doctoral students belonging to different subject areas and who had changed their supervisors (which the authors were aware of) were purposefully selected; they all agreed to be part of the study. After the interviews, the three participants were asked if she/he knew other doctoral students who had changed supervisors. These students were contacted by the authors and were asked to participate in the study.

The participants were between 31 and 58 years old (mean = 41.1) and were enrolled in five different universities in Southern Sweden. Of the 19 participants, 15 were women. In total, 12 of the participants had finalized their studies, mainly between 2018 and 2020 (of which two had a licentiate degree). The remainder were still enrolled as doctoral students and were at different stages of their program. Overall, they belonged to 11 different subject areas within social sciences including business-related and health-related subject areas, informatics and psychology.

Data collection

Data were collected from May to October 2020 through face to face, individual interviews with 19 doctoral students. A semi-structured interview guide was used that outlined a set of issues that were to be explored with each participant. However, the interviews allowed and welcomed openness to changes to follow the stories of the participants. Examples of the main questions are given below:

Can you tell me why you started your postgraduate education?

Could you describe your experiences of your postgraduate education (so far)?

Can you tell me about how do/did you experience your relationship with your supervisor/s?

What was the reason for the supervisory change?

How did you experience the process of the supervisory change?

How did the supervisory change affect you?

What are your recommendations to other doctoral students who are considering changing a supervisor?

One pilot interview was conducted to test the interview guide, which led to a minimal revision. Thus, the pilot interview was included in the analysis. Seven interviews were conducted in person while the remainder were conducted via the video communication tool Zoom, which guaranteed a face to face conversation. This latter option was mainly used due to current circumstances concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Five interviews were conducted in English while the remainder were held in the participants’ native language, Swedish. On average the interviews lasted 57 min (ranging from 36 to 105 min). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Ethical considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the Swedish law concerning research involving humans (SFS, 2003 ). Informed consent was given by all the participants prior to the interviews. The consent letter included information about the aim of the study, the right to withdraw at any given time without providing a reason, that participation was voluntary, that the interviews would be audio-recorded and that material would be stored in a safe way. Further, the participants were informed that the collected data would be treated confidentially and that only the authors of the study would be able to access it. The findings were presented at the group level.

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis (TA) by Braun and Clarke (2006 , 2019 ). TA is a method for identifying and interpreting patterns in what people say in data and why. TA is seen as being flexible and can range from a basic descriptive analysis or sematic meaning to the underlying or latent meaning in data. Though not linked to any theoretical framework, it is important to inform which theoretical position TA is being used in (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). In this study, the authors applied a “contextualist” method. Thus, the study rests on the assumption that the relationship between doctoral students and supervisors does not exist in a vacuum but is integrated and influenced by certain contexts such as a collegial environment, the scholarly community and the university or society at large. Further, it entails that the authors acknowledge the way the participants made meaning of their individual experiences but also consider that these individual meanings were influenced by a wider social context (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). This “in-between” epistemological position resonates with Willig (2013) assuming that “while experience is always a product of interpretation, and therefore, constructed […] it is nevertheless ‘real’ to the person who is having the experience” (p. 12). Thus, the authors consider the reality of changing supervisors by exploring the participants’ experiences and the meanings they make of it, which are embedded in a social context that influences their meaning making.

TA as proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) follows a systematic and thorough yet flexible and organic process involving six steps. Step one started with becoming familiar with the data that is the authors read and re-read the interview texts. The next step was organizing the data into meaningful groups. Codes were formed inductively that is they were “data driven” and this step was carried out individually by each author. This step resulted in a list of initial codes. At this stage, the authors could see that the doctoral students’ experiences did not differ when it came to a change in the main or co-supervisors, as the change was troublesome regardless of the supervisors’ official supervisory role. The third step involved sorting the different codes into potential themes, as well as identifying relationships between codes and themes and different levels of themes. This step was carried out individually by each author and thereafter in collaboration. At this stage, it was decided to structure the results chronologically, implying that the reported experiences of the supervisory change could stretch over an extended period of time. The fourth step, reviewing themes, showed the non-linear process of this analysis as the authors moved back and forth through most of the steps. Here the focus was on re-doing and breaking up themes and forming new themes as the authors started working together and compared their initial, individual work. More attention was paid to internal homogeneity within and external heterogeneity between themes to create clear distinctions between the themes. Step five involved generating clear definitions and names for each theme. Sub-themes were formed when considered necessary. Finally, the sixth step was the production of the report. Here the focus was on selecting appropriate quotations for each theme. The analysis thus, included both the semantic meaning and the latent meaning of the data.

There were regular discussions among the authors during the last three steps till consensus was reached. In this way, the trustworthiness of the results was enhanced (Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ).

As qualitative research is seen as a creative, reflexive and subjective process, researcher subjectivity is understood as a resource rather than a liability (Braun and Clarke, 2019 ). Thus, the authors were aware and open-minded about their pre-understanding and reflexivity during the entire research process. Both authors are women close to the mean age of the data sample who have successfully undergone a PhD education. Both authors have also experienced supervisory changes. Thus, it was important for the authors to reflect on their own biases or pre-conceptions and to have member checks, that is, to report back the preliminary findings to the participants for possible feedback to the authors, to verify the results and increase the study’s credibility (Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ). While one author was familiar with qualitative studies and analyzes, the other was familiar with behavioral science. Both authors had experience in conducting research on doctoral students and doctoral student-related outcomes.

To get an overall understanding of the nature of the participants’ often complex situations, the authors now provide an overview of the reported reasons for the changes.

Reasons for a supervisory change

The participants had two–four supervisors prior to the change and after, with one exception where one doctoral student only had one supervisor after the change. In total, 14 out of 19 participants changed their main supervisors; in some cases, this was followed by yet another change of one of the co-supervisors. In addition, more than half the participants went through more than one change; often two to three changes and in two cases four changes. In a few instances, additional supervisory changes were being considered at the time of the interview. As the inclusion criteria included having had a supervisory change, a certain degree of initial problems was assumed, which was true for 18 out of 19 participants. In one exception, the change was experienced overall as positive prior, during and after the change. In this case, the change was not initiated by the doctoral student as it was due to the supervisor’s retirement plans. This felt natural in the research process as the change could be implemented smoothly with existing competence within the supervisory team and happened very late in the doctoral student’s research process, and thus, did not affect her/him. All the other participants, however, experienced some problems prior to the change and an improvement in the situation after the change, as least when compared to their previous situation.

The reasons for change highlighted by the doctoral students varied but often originated from a poor supervisory relationship. A dominant supervisory style, lack of communication and pedagogical skills and lack of belief in the students’ abilities were examples mentioned by the participants for the supervisory changes. Some students also experienced a lack of structure and clarity concerning what was expected of them. However, in some cases, a change of supervisor also indirectly or directly originated from the supervisor/s. In one case, the doctoral student was forced to change supervisors three times in a row because of supervisors moving away, while in two other cases, the supervisors’ moves were thought to be not an issue initially but resulted in the doctoral students choosing to switch supervisors after all. The retirement of the main supervisors also led to supervisory changes for two participants; in one case, the retired supervisor left and in the other, she/he stepped down to become a co-supervisor. Internal swaps within the supervisory team occurred frequently as well, and doctoral students were usually not part of these decisions. Organizational changes at the university level or cultural clashes were also issues for the participants, particularly for those not born in Sweden.

Experiences of changes in supervisory arrangements

The doctoral students often experienced a change in supervisory arrangements as a lengthy process that matured over several months or years. Therefore, the findings section is structured as “doctoral experiences prior to the change,” “doctoral experiences during the change” and “doctoral experiences after the change.”

Doctoral experiences prior to the change.

Doctoral students were hesitant in reaching a decision on whether to change a supervisor or not. They usually handled their thoughts and emotions originating from a supervisory problem on their own before communicating them. The following four main themes could be derived in this section, namely, “thinking twice,” “being emotionally drained,” “seeking distractions” and “who helps? Or not […].” The main themes are given in Table 1 .

Thinking twice.

Even though the doctoral students might have been informed about the possibility and their right to change supervisors during their studies, it was implicitly communicated to them that doing so would be wrong. For example, one participant said: “it was during an introduction day or something, when you got to see all the different forms and how everything works and such […] this person said ‘here are different forms, including one form for changing supervisors, but you are not supposed to do that. However, there is such a possibility’” (interview 15). Thus, the students were fostered in an academic culture that imposed on them the view that supervisory change was bad, wrong and a failure. This, in turn, could evoke feelings of shame and stigma, which prevented the students from expressing problems associated with their PhD studies or supervisors. Doctoral students were aware of their right to change supervisors, yet they were mindful of the risks and consequences of a possible change. This made some of the students remain in harmful and destructive supervisory relationships for strategic reasons while others stayed keeping their approaching graduation in mind.

Being seen as a troublemaker by other scholars or the management was another reason for doctoral students “thinking twice” before changing supervisors. Instead, the students felt the need to appear accepting and thankful as they had been given the possibility to carry out their research. They felt that they were expected to behave this way.

“Interviewer: Why did you stay for such a long time? Doctoral student: I do not know. Good question. I just wanted to finish. I did not want to cause trouble. […] I did not want to cause trouble. I did not want to cause trouble. I just said. ‘OK, if I try enough to please her, if I just work hard enough, eventually she will realize that I can write; I can do this.’ Till in the end, after four years, I realized that she never wanted me to pass” (interview 7).

Being in an inferior position, the doctoral students believed that supervisors were more experienced in academia and trusted their supervisors’ assessment of how the supervision process should be formed. One participant said: “as you have never had a supervisor before, you take it for granted that they know what they are doing. So, you just go along and do not ask that many questions” (interview 4). These feelings restrained the students from taking any action. In retrospect, many of them were surprised with themselves and questioned why they had not reacted and been more questioning, demanding or inquisitive before the change. Finally, fear caused by a very dominant supervisory style led to not daring to speak up and becoming passive, thus prolonging the process of decision-making further, which paralyzed the students.

“Now when I think about it and when I’ve become my normal self, I just get mad at myself, ‘Why did you believe his bullshit? It’s not like he had that power. Why did you let him over-rule you like that or put you down so much? You should have just like told him: ‘Show me’!” (interview 5).

Being emotionally drained.

An underlying feeling of irritation due to recurring relational problems was common among the doctoral students, with one exception. Most students experienced high emotional strain prior to taking a decision to change supervisors. One participant said: “I tried to quit. I took it to heart and I felt really bad. And I was probably very close to going into the wall […] or getting into depression or something. It was so bad. I cried every day for weeks” (interview 4). Bitterness, loneliness, depressive symptoms, anger and a sense of loss of self-confidence, drive and motivation were among the feelings expressed by the participants. Crying for long periods of time was repeatedly mentioned by several students. This long period of coming to a decision posed the risk of an increased level of mental health problems. It could also affect their private lives thus, spilling over to their family lives, influencing sleeping patterns and they felt it was difficult to distance themselves from the problem. This was also noticed by their spouses.

“I have never felt that way, the way I did then. Not even in the worst phases in my life. He broke me down, where I was like just being numb. I wouldn’t […] I didn’t […] I didn’t know what. I just woke up, and I slept. But what happened in between those […] that time, I had no idea. Like I was just numb. He broke… He managed to break me down” (interview 5).

“I can say that in that group I felt very oppressed. I can say I did not want to kill myself, but I felt […] Damn how bad I felt in her relationship. So, it's […] I cried every day, and it was awful. It was […] I felt really bad, and really, really, really downtrodden” (interview 6).

Seeking distractions.

When the strain for some doctoral students became very high and they felt they were not moving forward and were just enduring their situation, they tried to distract themselves from the research process and from the poor supervisory relationship to find other domains that they could succeed in, for example, taking courses. One participant turned to teaching: “I tried to improve my teaching skills instead and I started teaching. I started getting, you know, positive feedback from the students. I tried to improve all my teaching techniques” (interview 3). In this way, they felt that they were not just wasting time. However, it could also be brought up against them by the supervisors who might claim they were focusing on the wrong things and were not interested in research.

“It might have affected me more than I thought. Although there was an advantage; during the toughest time I took the courses. I could get really into it and leave the research process totally […] And not give a crap about it. I hoped that it would be solved within ten weeks’ time or so. Or something like that” (interview 12).

Who helps? Or not […].

After acknowledging that there was a problem that was not about to disappear, the doctoral students communicated their feelings and thoughts to someone else. In a few cases, the students were approached by either another supervisor or other doctoral students as they appeared sad and down. Being able to air one’s feelings opened a gateway for some, as they finally talked to someone and could get support, be empowered and be pushed forward; it was as if they had been waiting for informal approval. For several doctoral students, there was a person who directly or indirectly helped them embark on the endeavor of moving forward with a supervisory change. This could be the study director or a supervisor. Others were left entirely on their own or even discouraged and told that they were not allowed to change supervisors. The management/leadership was usually experienced as a letdown by the doctoral students as they prioritized protecting their own interests, that is, the reputation of the supervisors and the university, rather than protecting the students’ rights.

“I told them, ‘I want to switch, and I have the right to do this. Enough is enough’. And then we all met. I contacted the labor union and everyone, the head of the department. Everyone was involved […] Everyone was involved. Then I tried to switch. And then there was an e-mail that came, saying that ‘You know what? We have decided that you are not allowed to switch. You have to continue’” (interview 5).

“What I really want to say is that as a doctoral student, if you end up in any kind of conflict with your supervisor, it is totally clear that there is no one who will support your perspective. There was vast support for the supervisors and professors within the senior research group. There they supported each other and had each other's back. But there was nothing like […] From a working environment perspective, there was no support. There was no one who said, ‘How are you?’ or something…” (interview 14).

Doctoral experiences during the change.

Often a crucial event resulted in students’ reaching a point of no return. The change itself could be experienced as positive despite having a troublesome prehistory, but some experienced the change as traumatic. Four main sub-themes are discussed in this theme, namely, “keeping a clean conscience,” “fighting for your rights,” “entering the battlefield” and “the execution.”

Keeping a clean conscience.

The doctoral students wanted to be fair and humane in the process of changing supervisors. Taking a long-term perspective, they did not want to be burdened with a feeling of regret over their behavior in the future. As one of the participants said: “but like if I meet him in 10 years, I do not want him to be able to accuse me of anything […]. Then, I want my back completely free and I want to know that I have done what I could to try to sort it out, to try to save the situation” (interview 12). Many understood that they had to take some part of the responsibility and were eager to keep fairly good relationships with their supervisors after the change as none of them wanted to hurt someone deliberately. Having come to a decision, the students wanted to communicate it in a transparent way, acting in an honest and upfront manner.

“Because I was told, ‘We would like to help you to start a dialogue [with the supervisor that you want to replace]’ I said, ‘But I do not want it [decision to change] to come from anyone but myself’ […] I do not want there to be any consequences in retrospect […] or schisms in the group” (interview 9).

Fighting for your rights.

Those doctoral students who felt that they had been treated unfairly by the organization, the study director or supervisor could be motivated by the lack of fair play and fought harder for their right to change supervisors. Feeling reluctant, indecisive and hesitant at the beginning and often even considering quitting rather than taking on the struggle of changing supervisors, could now change into feeling spurred and fight back. This feeling was sparked by others’ unfair and offensive behavior toward them. One participant said: “so I am fighting back this time. I have learned my lesson. I cannot keep retreating. So, I am fighting back. […] I will fight back. I will come back. I will come back. Yeah. So, we will see” (interview 7). To give up might be seen by others as admitting being the cause of the problem; therefore, the students tried to hang on. Seeing other doctoral students who in fact had quit due to poor supervisory relationships encouraged them not to go down the same road and give up.

“I cannot live with myself knowing that, ‘OK, you gave up because of that [problems]’. I mean I’ve been so close to giving up so many times. But every time I thought, ‘You know what? I mean who are you?’ […] like what the hell? You know. At least I have to fight back. Try something” (interview 5).

Entering the battlefield.

In a few cases, when consensus could be reached and interests were aligned (for example, by internal swaps for merit, career possibilities for junior supervisors or by making the project leader the main supervisor) the change was unproblematic and undramatic with no hurt feelings. However, changes due to poor supervisory relationships could often end traumatically and were experienced as a declaration of war by the students. They came to some sort of realization as expressed by one of the participants: “and it was probably like I came to some kind of tipping point, where I felt, ‘now that’s it. I am not taking any more of this shit […]’” (interview 19). The most traumatic cases involved a final dispute between the supervisor and the student that escalated into an open conflict with open attacks.

“When the other supervisors joined us, I think she realized […] When we had a meeting, which we rarely had, where all of us, the three supervisors and I met. And I think what happened then was that maybe she felt a little threatened. When she verbalized that I was not happy […] informed the others […]. Admitting it to the others, maybe she felt a bit stressed. And felt that she had to put some blame on me too. She attacked me terribly during this meeting. And I felt so stressed that I […] She asked, ‘Do you want to replace me? Do you want to replace me?’. I felt that I couldn’t say anything else. Yes, so then […] I guess I have to take that road. I felt extremely pressured by her, that she suddenly changed strategy 180 degrees and attacked me like this, so that I just felt that I had to say that I wanted to replace her” (interview 2).

The execution.

The official change itself was often experienced as fast and unbureaucratic and was perceived as unimportant. It involved signatures of all involved that is the doctoral student, the supervisor who was removed, the new supervisor (if any) and the study director. Most of the students did not care much about the formal procedures of the change and often this task was handled by the study director or one of the supervisors. The part that mattered most to the students was the practical side of the change, that is, with the new supervisory constellation starting afresh.

“But we changed it informally first. So, we started having […] supervision meetings with the main supervisor and the new supervisor, without the former co-supervisor. We continued with that for another six months. […] No one cared actually! Hahaha! No one cared! Until the former supervisor said […] ‘Oh [student’s name] you know, I will send you an application that you have to sign’” (interview 16).

“Administratively, it was quite effortless. The difficulty was getting hold of the former main supervisor so he could sign the papers. […] And that took at least another month till we got the signature. For a while we thought, ‘We’ll go on anyway, he can sign when he feels like it’. But you have to get it done, formally. It was quite […] it took some time to get hold of him” (interview 8).

Doctoral experiences after the change.

Although the doctoral students’ experiences before the change could in many cases be negative and unpleasant, they mostly talked positively once the change was handled. All the students reported an improvement, in some cases not optimal but still somewhat better. However, many had several supervisory changes. Four main themes were derived in this section, namely, “a new beginning,” “looking for confirmation,” “oops! I did it again” and “dealing with the aftermath.”

A new beginning.

After completion of the change, the doctoral students felt relieved, free and energized. As one of the participants said: “I think the strength came after I fired her and I felt that I had renewed energy to do research. Then, I realized I liked to do research. I really, really enjoyed doing research” (interview 7). If the supervisor was replaced by a new one, he or she came into the supervisory team very fast to avoid further delays. They experienced the new supervisor constellation working better than the previous one and the same was true for the relationships between supervisors. The new situation motivated the students; they found a new interest in their projects and were eager to continue. Issues such as poor writing ability or lack of structure or direction that were criticized earlier disappeared instantly. As those problems previously impacted negatively on the students’ self-confidence, even this had changed now and they regained their strength to go on.

“I felt so incredibly uplifted. I felt motivated. It felt so enjoyable. It was like, ‘Is this how supervision should be? Oh, really!’ And you can almost get sad about that. So […] But then the work took off, when the two [new supervisors] took over. And […] It was such an incredible process, so much more fun” (interview 12).

“So, from a short-term perspective, right before, I probably repressed everything, it was tough when the change was obvious. It was certainly difficult. I cannot say anything else. But in the long run, it was great not to have a relationship anymore that did not work. So, in the long run it turned out great. I got […] I got to experience a supervisor whom I could actually discuss things with, even discuss the questions I had. It was fantastic. Yes” (interview 11).

The students felt safe and supported and dared to step forward with their ideas; their productivity increased dramatically as their motivation and energy were renewed after the change.

Several students had the possibility of choosing the new supervisors themselves. They carefully chose the new supervisors depending on the problems that they had faced with the previous ones. Supervisors who abused their power were often replaced by supervisors known to be fair, correct and with pedagogic skills; supervisors lacking expertise in method or the subject area were replaced by those who were experts and accomplished researchers in the field.

Looking for confirmation.

The doctoral students were very self-critical and appreciated getting some sort of confirmation of having taken the right decision. They could, however, ponder over how much of the problem they had actually caused themselves. Confirmation was, thus, a very important factor that empowered them in continuing and being reassured that they had taken the right decision. One participant expressed her way of getting confirmation as: “and then, he [replaced supervisor] wrote quite clearly in this e-mail that his goal from the beginning was to have communication with [my supervisor]. So, he hoped that they could work together. In addition, that was confirmation for me that I had taken the right decision” (interview 17). This confirmation could come from those persons who had helped and supported the students like colleagues who knew about the change or even from the supervisor who was removed when acting out of line or making other mistakes in the organization.

“She supervised another male doctoral student, and they got into trouble. And then she took on a third doctoral student, a woman. And there was trouble too and it ended. So […] Maybe, earlier I thought it might have been my fault, that I hadn’t acted correctly somehow. But because I got this confirmation […] that it was not just me who was a problem, but other students came forward… and I talked to those students […] they had the same problems that I had” (interview 1).

“I felt that some people understood what I was going through and that I definitely was not the problem. And I wanted to hear that. Because I felt […] […] because you buy it […] how much have I contributed to the problem? How much of the problem have I created and caused? Should I have done something differently? So, I was happy to hear comments, that […] Then I was in contact with [name], a former doctoral student [of the same supervisor]. And […] And she understood me very well. That felt good, too. Also, some colleagues, teachers who had courses together with her [supervisor], they knew what she is like. So, I got confirmation that [the change] was something all had been waiting for, or thought would happen. It was not surprising for them” (interview 2).

Oops! I did it again.

Considering the lengthy process of the PhD education, around half of the doctoral students (10 out of 19) went through two–four changes in their supervisory arrangements. Several of them were considering new changes even while the interviews were conducted. It was, thus, rather common and certainly not exceptional to have to handle different reasons for the changes involving different supervisors. Students could decide to add new supervisors to the team or internal swaps within the team were agreed on by supervisors. Sometimes other supervisors’ superfluity became obvious to the students once a supervisor was removed from the team. This was experienced as additionally problematic and caused further feelings of stigma among the students as the likelihood now increased of being really seen as the problem and the real troublemaker. One of the participants expressed her worries as: “I have already switched. I cannot continue like this. I cannot have the label ‘the switcher’” (interview 5). However, a change often involved different supervisors and was experienced as unique. Thus, calling it “repetitive” only simplifies the matter, as supervisory changes can occur for multiple reasons.

“How will I be perceived? Everyone deserves a second chance. I will be that super awkward doctoral student who just brushes away her supervisors. So somehow I did not accept it” (interview 12).

“And that’s when it became clear to me. Because if you do it once, it is what it is. But if you do it twice in a row, I thought, ‘Oh. Now people will understand that I am the problem. It will be clear if I start all over again and change my co-supervisor.’ So, I thought about it a lot, but in the end I did it anyway. And it was taken very badly by my other supervisors, I can tell you” (interview 2).

Dealing with the aftermath.

Apart from being happy and satisfied after making the change(s) and having a better research process, some doctoral students also experienced negative long-term consequences. Some supervisors who were removed from the supervisory team took it personally and behaved in vengeful ways such as talking badly about the students in the workplace, refusing to register any obtained course credits or trying to interfere in their career plans. Data loss or issues concerning ownership of data or publications of manuscripts that the students had started also needed to be handled in a few cases, which was time-consuming.

“He spread nasty things about me everywhere around our workplace […] He was on a lot of committees and stuff” (interview 4).

“He just wanted to put sticks in the wheels [for me]. Probably because he lived a lot on trying to paint a picture that there was nothing wrong with him, something was always wrong with the doctoral students” (interview 19).

The doctoral students understood that bitter feelings could impact them negatively long after the change and they wanted to avoid this risk and instead move forward. They wanted an outlook that included seeing the bigger picture and being among the next generation of supervisors. A few of the students were supervising or were about to become supervisors and were aware of which approach they would take.

“I feel like I wasted so much time of my life which I could have invested in so many other things. On the other hand, if it taught me something, it is to always be humble. Don’t ever ditch someone, or don’t ever abuse your power. If you have some type of power or something, don’t ever abuse it; never. If you’re […] like I believe the one who’s strong is the one who can lift others” (interview 5).

Some doctoral students felt that they had come out stronger after changing their supervisors and were able to tackle any kind of problem after the unpleasant experience and had gained mental strength.

“So, I’m just like a spear. I just went through everything. And maybe I taught myself to be resilient. So, I was resilient in this sense” (interview 16).

The purpose of this study was to explore how doctoral students experienced a change in supervisory arrangements. It takes the much-overlooked perspective of the doctoral students. The findings show that changes in supervisory arrangements stretched over several phases and doctoral students took many aspects into account before deciding to change their supervisors. Even though in Sweden doctoral students have the right to change a supervisor (SFS, 1993 ), the findings of this study suggest that the decision to change a supervisor, the process of change and the time after the change were traumatic and troublesome when the doctoral students experienced supervisory relationships.

Prior to the change

Prior to the supervisory changes, the doctoral students often thought twice before bringing up the question of change either for strategic reasons or because they were hesitant, eager to please or passive. Due to the lengthy pre-phase of the decision-making, the students felt emotionally drained and exhausted, which led to thoughts of quitting their studies. The doctoral students also tried to seek distractions and, in some cases, though help was offered, often they felt alone with their problems. The internal struggles and expressed hesitance when considering supervisory changes may be explained by the institutionalized attribution of the lower status of doctoral students in academia (Mendoza, 2007 ). The students appear to be conditioned to feel being on the lowest levels of the organizational hierarchy and as a consequence, they are fearful of being seen as troublemakers – “stepping on the toes” of their superiors. Moreover, presented with an ideal picture of a doctoral student’s journey (such as a friction-free supervision relationship and a smooth path toward dissertation defense), any deviation from this ideal might create an intrapersonal dissonance. This predisposes the students to maintain the status quo in focal relationships, that is, with their supervisors and other powerful actors (Bicchieri and Mercier, 2014 ). The political agenda of powerful internal actors could be yet another explanation for the internal struggles faced by the students in deciding to go for a supervisory change (Lucey and Rogers, 2007 ). Reluctant to tip the balance in established power structures in their research groups or departments, doctoral students might forfeit their right to change and instead opt for upholding the power structures that they are a part of as they fear reprimands or reprisals (Manathunga, 2007 ; Grant, 2008 ). However, it appears that holding back on a decision to change, doctoral students experienced the tension that was reflected in their decreasing well-being. According to Kiley and Wisker (2009) , these unresolved relational tensions in the supervision process and internal struggles experienced by the doctoral students may lead to attrition, non-completion and mental illnesses among students. Internal struggles experienced by the doctoral students lead to their falling into a liminal, suspended state (Meyer and Land, 2006 ). There, they may experience difficulties in finding their identity as researchers or even finding motivation and self-confidence to continue their education (Kiley and Wisker, 2009 ); aspects that this study discusses. The liminal state observed in this study is highlighted by education research that shows that learners entering such stages during the learning process usually see this stage as long-lasting, confusing, irreversible and alien (Perkins, 1999 ; Kiley and Wisker, 2009 ). Thus, the findings provide a better understanding of the internal struggles and lack of well-being doctoral students experience during the early stages of supervisory changes. Further, the study’s findings suggest that reliance on a trustworthy network of colleagues and fellow doctoral students may be one way of overcoming these internal struggles for doctoral students and getting through this stage. Opening up to one’s inner circle helps students resolve their struggles and make sense of the situation. Those students who isolate themselves or withhold their negative experiences of supervision are faced with the risks of losing faith, motivation and self-confidence and developing mental health problems.

During the change

Coming to the actual change, the doctoral students wanted to keep a clean conscience initially, however, when met with resistance and unfair treatment, they felt forced to fight for their rights and burocratic were willing to enter the battlefield , almost like a war declaration. The official side of the change, t he execution , was merely perceived as unimportant paperwork, while the students focused on continuing their studies with the new supervisory constellation.

While the previous phase mostly involved doctoral students’ internal struggles, this phase included open fights and public discussions, which was equally exhausting and emotionally draining for doctoral students. The difficulties and frustration experienced by the doctoral students who participated in this study have been described in similar terms by Carter (2016) , who explored supervisors’ experiences of challenging supervision. Like doctoral students, these supervisors too reported feelings of loss of academic identity, lack of confidence and exhaustion when struggling with supervision. At this stage, doctoral students come to terms with their decision to change and make a conscious choice to stay in academia no matter the difficulties associated with changing a supervisor. This process of “overcoming” illustrated by these findings is similar to the findings of other studies describing how learners cross an invisible threshold in their development, which stimulates further learning and also changes one’s perceptions of learning capacity (Meyer and Land, 2006 ; Carter, 2016 ). At this stage, doctoral students included in this study overcame a threshold (Kiley and Wisker, 2010 ; Meyer and Land, 2006 ) by externalizing their previously internalized struggles by being more vocal about their experiences and bringing them into the open (Bryan and Guccione, 2018 ). In the process of this externalization, they gained a new way of understanding, interpreting and viewing the situation (Kiley and Wisker, 2010 ; Meyer and Land, 2006 ), which potentially helped them to progress further in their doctoral studies. Thus, these findings provide a better understanding of the “threshold overcoming” process and highlight how externalization of internal struggles occurs. Further, the study’s findings suggest that through externalization of their previously internalized struggles, doctoral students may gain a better understanding of academia by experiencing how and which different forces worked for and against them in the process of change. Moreover, the findings indicate that going through this difficult period, doctoral students might come to realize their own strengths and weaknesses, which could enable them in their learning. Finally, it is in this stage that the role of the study directors of doctoral programs becomes acutely important as they could be expected to deal with the situation and manage different stakeholders in the process of supervisory change. They appear to be one of the most important shapers of doctoral students’ experiences at this stage and their actions could have long lasting consequences for doctoral students’ further journeys in academia.

After the change

After the supervisory changes, doctoral students embarked on a new beginning , which was perceived to be re-energizing and which contributed to a feeling of entering a productive research phase. Still, shaken by the event, confirmation from others helped them move forward and regain self-confidence. Capitalizing on the gained experience of changing supervisors who did not fit their needs, some of the doctoral students proceeded with further changes in supervisory arrangements with the goal of composing a team that they felt comfortable with. With the aim of arranging a well-functioning supervisory team, doctoral students were weary of how they may be perceived by others for changing their supervisors yet again . Even though some doctoral students had to deal with the aftermath of vengeful supervisors and were negatively impacted long after, they were eager to move forward and had a feeling of accomplishment.

The findings of this study show that once the supervisory changes were complete, doctoral students regained strength, energy and resilience and were able to move forward. These findings echo Wisker and Robinson’s (2013) findings that suggest that doctoral students who had “survived” being left by their supervisors and who had completed their studies, that is, after the supervisory changes, felt resilient with regard to “becoming unstuck,” being able to tackle problems, coping with new demands and regaining ownership of their projects. Further, this analysis resonates with Bryan and Guccione’s (2018) findings that doctoral students feel proud of their accomplishments and became resilient despite negative experiences. This study describes doctoral students’ experiences as being reminiscent of war, suffering, being in a battlefield and survival. This description is similar to Bryan and Guccione’s (2018) study in which former doctoral students described negative experiences during their doctoral studies using the same terms.

Developing resilience and gaining a feeling of accomplishment was reinforced by positive experiences that most of the students had with their new supervisors. Regaining confidence in their scientific capacity was especially obvious when doctoral students could choose their new supervisors (Lovitts, 2001 ; Schlosser et al. , 2003 ). Moreover, students’ ability to see a successful end to their doctoral journeys, can be explained by their feeling of mastery over their own destiny and control that was partly reflected in the concept of “becoming unstuck” described by Kiley and Wisker (2009) . In the process of becoming unstuck, learners were enabled to develop a new way of approaching their own learning and understanding of the roles that different stakeholders play in this process (McKenna, 2017 ).

Thus, these findings provide an insight into the aftermath of the change and reveal the processes through which doctoral students gain resilience and renewed energy. Further, the study’s findings suggest that by moving into this phase, doctoral students may gain a feeling of independence and control. This suggests that going through the other stages, doctoral students might look forward to a brighter future of their academic career. They might also expect to become a more resilient person, ready to deal with any further challenges on their further academic journey.

The findings of this study make a number of contributions to the extant literature on doctoral students’ experiences during their studies (Devos et al. , 2017 ; Schmidt and Umans, 2014 ). First, by highlighting doctoral students’ experiences during a crucial event – supervisory change – in their doctoral education, this study contributes to this nascent stream of research (Wisker and Robinson, 2013 ) and paves the way for further investigation of these experiences. Second, by highlighting how doctoral students experience supervisory changes in different stages, this study provides an in-depth understanding of the process of supervisory change from the doctoral students’ perspective. Third, the study contributes to the literature by exploring the supervisory relationship in PhD education (Lee, 2020 ; Gatfield, 2005 ) and highlights how the dynamics of that relationship evolve and are reflected in doctoral students’ experiences and decisions related to supervisory changes. Fourth, by highlighting doctoral students’ experiences of their well-being throughout the process of a supervisory change, this study contributes to the extant literature on doctoral students’ experiences of their well-being (Schmidt and Hansson, 2018 ; Evans et al. , 2018 ). Finally, this study contributes to the literature describing doctoral students’ experiences in an academic context (Mendoza, 2007 ; Kulikowski et al. , 2019 ) and their perceptions of this context being both enabling and disabling in the process of supervisory change.

Practical implications and future research directions

This study highlights the importance of process management not only from within the student-supervisor constellation but also among powerful external actors. The findings suggest that academic institutions should establish clear guidelines that are not only documented but are also implemented in practice, and that de-dramatization of the changes in supervisory arrangements should be an important institutional practice.

The results of this study suggest that more awareness about doctoral students’ experiences of the relationships with their supervisors is needed at all involved levels in doctoral programs. Study directors already have regular meetings with all doctoral students as stipulated by the study plan. However, a more open-minded environment will be helpful for doctoral students to be able to come forward with problematic supervisory relationships. In several cases, the study director was not seen as helpful and students felt alone in the process of supervisory change. Thus, it is crucial to recruit individuals who are well-fitted for the position as study directors; they should be willing to hold uncomfortable discussions and their authority should not only rest on their position in the line organization but also on their proven record of successful supervision at the doctoral level. For supervisors, it would be desirable to initiate and continue a transparent agenda and planning process that involves doctoral students as much as possible. More acceptance for the fact that doctoral students have the right to choose supervisors will help doctoral students avoid feelings of wrongdoing. As for doctoral students, it is suggested that they have a tight network with other doctoral students and remain observant of their emotional state as the study shows that doctoral students often choose to share their experiences with other doctoral students. While this study has been conducted in a Swedish context, its findings are relevant for academia in general because institutions of higher education are structured and organized similarly.

This study has highlighted the doctoral students’ perspectives. Future studies should explore supervisors’ and study directors’ perspectives in the context of supervisory changes and are seen as equally important. Moreover, future research should further explore other relational aspects of changes in supervisory arrangements. For example, inter-relationships focusing on the supervisory team, relationships between doctoral students and institutional management or supervisors’ status and standing in the institutions that they are employed in could be further explored.

Limitations

This study is not without its limitations. First, the snowball sampling method is prone to bias (Atkinson and Flint, 2004 ). This means that doctoral students often chose those similar to them which poses the risk of a homogenous sample. In this case, 15 of the participants were women. Yet, of those seven students who declined to participate in the study/did not answer, five were men, which could indicate that it is more difficult to involve men in such a discussion. In fact, two of those men declined to be a part of the study as they had difficulties talking about their unpleasant experiences.

Second, even though the doctoral students varied in age, the average age of the sample was around 10 years older compared to the average age of all doctoral students in Sweden impacting on the representativeness of the sample. It further may raise questions whether younger doctoral students could experience supervisory change differently compared to more mature students.

Third and finally, this study only included persons who were currently enrolled or had finalized their studies, discarding the perspective of students who had quit PhD programs. It is believed that valuable information could be gained by including former doctoral students who decided to quit their studies, perhaps, because they found the change too hard to go through with.

Overview of the main themes from the thematic analysis

Al Makhamreh , M. and Stockley , D. ( 2019 ), “ Mentorship and well-being: Examining doctoral students’ lived experiences in doctoral supervision context ”, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 20 , doi: 10.1108/IJMCE-02-2019-0013 .

Atkinson , R. and Flint , J. ( 2004 ), Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods , Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications, Inc .

Barnes , B.J. , Williams , E.A. and Archer , S.A. ( 2010 ), “ Characteristics that matter most: Doctoral students' perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes ”, NACADA Journal , Vol. 30 No. 1 , pp. 34 - 46 , doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.34 .

Barnett , J.V. , Harris , R.A. and Mulvany , M.J. ( 2017 ), “ A comparison of best practices for doctoral training in Europe and North America ”, FEBS Open Bio , Vol. 7 No. 10 , pp. 1444 - 1452 , doi: 10.1002/2211-5463.12305 .

Basturkmen , H. , East , M. and Bitchener , J. ( 2014 ), “ Supervisors' on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community ”, Teaching in Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 4 , pp. 432 - 445 , doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.752728 .

Bicchieri , C. and Mercier , H. ( 2014 ), “ Norms and beliefs: How change occurs ”, in XENITIDOU , M. and EDMONDS , B. (Eds), The Complexity of Social Norms , Springer .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2006 ), “ Using thematic analysis in psychology ”, Qualitative Research in Psychology , Vol. 3 No. 2 , pp. 77 - 101 , doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2019 ), “ Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis ”, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , Vol. 11 No. 4 , pp. 589 - 597 , doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 .

Bryan , B. and Guccione , K. ( 2018 ), “ Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol. 37 No. 6 , pp. 1124 - 1140 , doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1479378 .

Carter , S. ( 2016 ), “ Supervision learning as conceptual threshold crossing: when supervision gets ‘medieval ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol. 35 No. 6 , pp. 1139 - 1152 , doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1160875 .

Christie , H. , Tett , L. , Cree , V.E. , Hounsell , J. and Mccune , V. ( 2008 ), “ A real rollercoaster of confidence and emotions’: Learning to be a university student ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 33 No. 5 , pp. 567 - 581 , doi: 10.1080/03075070802373040 .

Cornér , S. , Löfström , E. and Pyhältö , K. ( 2017 ), “ The relationship between doctoral students’ perceptions of supervision and burnout ”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies , Vol. 12 , pp. 91 - 106 .

Denicolo , P. ( 2004 ), “ Doctoral supervision of colleagues: Peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 29 No. 6 , pp. 693 - 707 , doi: 10.1080/0307507042000287203 .

Devos , C. , Boudrenghien , G. , Van der Linden , N. , Azzi , A. , Frenay , M. , Galand , B. and Klein , O. ( 2017 ), “ Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress ”, European Journal of Psychology of Education , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 77 , doi: 10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0 .

Dobre , O.I. ( 2013 ), “ Employee motivation and organizational performance ”, Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 53 - 60 .

Evans , T.M. , Bira , L. , Gastelum , J.B. , Weiss , L.T. and Vanderford , N.L. ( 2018 ), “ Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education ”, Nature Biotechnology , Vol. 36 No. 3 , pp. 282 - 284 , doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089 .

Gardner , S.K. ( 2009 ), “ Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States ”, Higher Education , Vol. 58 No. 1 , pp. 97 - 112 , doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7 .

Gatfield , T. ( 2005 ), “ An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications ”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , Vol. 27 No. 3 , pp. 311 - 325 , doi: 10.1080/13600800500283585 .

Grant , B.M. ( 2008 ), “ Agonistic struggle: Master – slave dialogues in humanities supervision ”, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education , Vol. 7 No. 1 , pp. 9 - 27 , doi: 10.1177/1474022207084880 .

Groenvynck , H. , Vandevelde , K. and VAN Rossem , R. ( 2013 ), “ The PhD track: who succeeds, who drops out? ”, Research Evaluation , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 199 - 209 , doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvt010 .

Gurr , G.M. ( 2001 ), “ Negotiating the ‘rackety bridge’ – a dynamic model for aligning supervisory style with research student development ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol. 20 No. 1 , pp. 81 - 92 , doi: 10.1080/07924360120043882 .

Jacks , P. , Chubin , D.E. , Porter , A.L. and Connolly , T. ( 1983 ), “ The ABCs of ABDs: a study of incomplete doctorates ”, Improving College and University Teaching , Vol. 31 No. 2 , pp. 74 - 81 .

Kiley , M. and Wisker , G. ( 2009 ), “ Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol. 28 No. 4 , pp. 431 - 441 , doi: 10.1080/07294360903067930 .

Kiley , M. and Wisker , G. ( 2010 ), “ Learning to be a researcher: the concepts and crossings ”, in MEYER , J. and LAND , R. (Eds), Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning , Amsterdam : Brill .

Kulikowski , K. , Potoczek , A. , Antipow , E. and Król , S. ( 2019 ), “ How to survive in academia: Demands, resources and study satisfaction among polish PhD students ”, Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice , Vol. 19 No. 4 , pp. 65 - 79 .

Lee , A. ( 2020 ), Successful Research Supervision , New York, NY , Routledge .

Lincoln , Y.S. and Guba , E.G. ( 1985 ), Naturalistic Inquiry , Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications .

Lovitts , B.E. ( 2001 ), Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study , Lanham, MD : Rowman and Littefield .

Lucey , H. and Rogers , C. ( 2007 ), “ Power and the unconscious in doctoral Student-Supervisor relationships ”, in Gillies , V. and Lucey , H. (Eds), Power, Knowledge and the Academy: The Institutional is Political , London : Palgrave Macmillan UK .

Mcalpine , L. , Paulson , J. , Gonsalves , A. and Jazvac-Martek , M. ( 2012 ), “ Untold’doctoral stories: can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect? ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol. 31 No. 4 , pp. 511 - 523 , doi: 10.1080/07294360.2011.559199 .

Mckenna , S. ( 2017 ), “ Crossing conceptual thresholds in doctoral communities ”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International , Vol. 54 No. 5 , pp. 458 - 466 , doi: 10.1080/14703297.2016.1155471 .

Manathunga , C. ( 2007 ), “ Supervision as mentoring: the role of power and boundary crossing ”, Studies in Continuing Education , Vol. 29 No. 2 , pp. 207 - 221 , doi: 10.1080/01580370701424650 .

Mendoza , P. ( 2007 ), “ Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: a case study ”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 78 No. 1 , pp. 71 - 96 , doi: 10.1080/00221546.2007.11778964 .

Meyer , J. and Land , R.E. ( 2006 ), Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge , Oxon , Routledge .

Murphy , N. , Bain , J.D. and Conrad , L. ( 2007 ), “ Orientations to research higher degree supervision ”, Higher Education , Vol. 53 No. 2 , pp. 209 - 234 , doi: 10.1007/s10734-005-5608-9 .

Owens , A. , Brien , D.L. , Ellison , E. and Batty , C. ( 2020 ), “ Student reflections on doctoral learning: challenges and breakthroughs ”, Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 107 - 122 , doi: 10.1108/SGPE-04-2019-0048 .

Paul , P. , Olson , J.K. and Gul , R.B. ( 2014 ), “ Co-supervision of doctoral students: enhancing the learning experience ”, International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 31 - 38 .

Perkins , D. ( 1999 ), “ The many faces of constructivism ”, Educational Leadership , Vol. 57 No. 3 , pp. 6 - 11 .

Pyhältö , K. , Vekkaila , J. and Keskinen , J. ( 2015 ), “ Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: doctoral students' and supervisors' perceptions about the supervisory activities ”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International , Vol. 52 No. 1 , pp. 4 - 16 , doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.981836 .

SCB [Statistics Sweden] ( 2019 ), Third-Cycle Students and Third-Cycle Qualifications 2018 , [Swedish Higher Education Authority] UKÄ .

Schlosser , L.Z. , Knox , S. , Moskovitz , A.R. and Hill , C.E. ( 2003 ), “ A qualitative examination of graduate advising relationships: the advisee perspective ”, Journal of Counseling Psychology , Vol. 50 No. 2 , pp. 178 - 188 , doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.178 .

Schmidt , M. and Hansson , E. ( 2018 ), “ Doctoral students’ well-being: a literature review ”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being , Vol. 13 No. 1 , p. 1508171 , doi: 10.1080/17482631.2018.1508171 .

Schmidt , M. and Umans , T. ( 2014 ), “ Experiences of well-being among female doctoral students in Sweden ”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being , Vol. 9 No. 1 , doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.23059 .

SFS ( 1993 ), “ [Swedish Higher Education Ordinance]. högskoleförordning, 1993:100. Stockholm:[ministry of education and research, Sweden] utbildningsdepartementet ”.

SFS ( 2003 ), “ [The Act concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans]. lag om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor, 2003:460. Stockholm:[ministry of education and research, Sweden] utbildningsdepartementet ”.

Shin , J.C. , Postiglione , G.A. and Ho , K.C. ( 2018 ), “ Challenges for doctoral education in east Asia: a global and comparative perspective ”, Asia Pacific Education Review , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 141 - 155 , doi: 10.1007/s12564-018-9527-8 .

Sowell , R. , Zhang , T. , Redd , K. and King , M. ( 2008 ), Ph.D. completion and Attrition: Analysis of Baseline Program Data from the Ph.D. completion Project , Washington, DC : Council of Graduate Schools .

Sverdlik , A. , Hall , N.C. , Mcalpine , L. and Hubbard , K. ( 2018 ), “ The PhD experience: a review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being ”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies , Vol. 13 No. 1 , pp. 361 - 388 , doi: 10.28945/4113 .

The World Bank (Unesco Institute for Statistics) ( 2020 ), “ School enrollment, tertiary (% gross) [online] ”, available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR ( accessed 30 June 2021 ).

Willig , C. ( 2013 ), Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology , Berkshire, England , Open University Press .

Wisker , G. and Robinson , G. ( 2012 ), “ Picking up the pieces: Supervisors and doctoral “orphans ”, International Journal for Researcher Development , Vol. 3 No. 2 , pp. 139 - 153 , doi: 10.1108/17597511311316982 .

Wisker , G. and Robinson , G. ( 2013 ), “ Doctoral ‘orphans’: Nurturing and supporting the success of postgraduates who have lost their supervisors ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol. 32 No. 2 , pp. 300 - 313 .

Acknowledgements

The authors thanks all participants for sharing their stories with them. Schmidt, M. acknowledges support from the Media, Management and Transformation Centre (MMTC) at Jönköping University.

Conflict of interest : The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Find a course
• Undergraduate study
• Postgraduate study
• MPhil/PhD research
• Short courses
• Entry requirements
• Financial support
• How to apply
• Come and meet us
• Evening study explained
• International Students
• Student Services
• Business Services
• Student life at Birkbeck
• The Birkbeck Experience
• Boost your career
• About Birkbeck
• Contact Birkbeck
• Faculties and Schools

Changes to the MPhil/PhD supervisor-researcher relationship

Occasionally, the relationship between you and your MPhil/PhD supervisor may change, so this page tells you everything you need to know about those potential changes. 

What to do if your supervisor is away 

• If your supervisor is on sabbatical leave, they will usually continue to supervise and regularly meet with you. 
• If your supervisor is on sabbatical leave away from Birkbeck, they will secure supervision cover from a suitable colleague. 
• If your supervisor is on parental, sick, compassionate or other leave, they will secure appropriate supervision cover from a suitable colleague. 
• Your second supervisor or a senior staff member in your school will usually cover your supervisions for the period that your principal supervisor is away.

What to do if your supervisor leaves Birkbeck 

• If your principal supervisor is moving to another institution, they will inform you as far in advance as possible. 
• You should speak to the MPhil/PhD Programme Director in your school for advice on the best steps to take in this situation. 
• Some possible scenarios include: 
• remain at Birkbeck and continue to be supervised by your principal supervisor, if they and their new institution are willing 
• follow your supervisor to their new institution (you will need to discuss this with the other institution) 
• find a new supervisor at Birkbeck, with the assistance of your school. In some cases, it may prove difficult to appoint a new supervisor if the requisite expertise is unavailable in the school and you may be advised to seek supervision elsewhere 
• remain at Birkbeck and be supervised by an academic at another institution within the University of London. 

Problems within the supervisory relationship

• Rarely, supervisory relationships do not function to the mutual satisfaction or benefit of the MPhil/PhD researchers and the principal (or sometimes second) supervisor. 
• You may feel that you are unable to establish an effective working relationship with your supervisor, or you may feel that your supervisor is failing to meet their responsibilities. 
• Every effort should be made to try to resolve concerns in other ways before considering a change of supervisor, but it is possible to change your principal and/or your second supervisor. 
• In the first instance, and if you feel able to, you should endeavour to discuss your concerns with your supervisor before seeking help elsewhere. 

Changing your supervisor 

• You should contact the MPhil/PhD Programme Director in your school and describe in writing the difficulties in your relationship with your supervisor. 
• You should then meet with the MPhil/PhD Programme Director to discuss the difficulties. 
• The MPhil/PhD Programme Director will then discuss these issues with the supervisor either alone or with you also present. If no resolution seems possible, the MPhil/PhD Programme Director will consider a potential new supervisor for you. 
• In some cases, it may prove difficult to appoint a new supervisor if the requisite expertise is unavailable in the school. In such instances, you may be advised to seek supervision elsewhere. 

Official policies and regulations 

• Birkbeck takes its responsibilities towards its students very seriously and has  formal guidelines, procedures and policies  in place that you are very welcome to read. 

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses

How to apply

• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Your course
• Postgraduate study
• Changes to your student status (postgraduates only)
• Cambridge students
• New students overview
• Pre-arrival courses
• Student registration overview
• Information for New Students
• Information for Continuing Students
• Frequently Asked Questions overview
• Who needs to register
• When to register
• Received registration in error/not received registration email
• Problems creating an account
• Problems logging in
• Problems with screen display
• Personal details changed/incorrectly displayed
• Course details changed/incorrectly displayed
• Accessing email and other services
• Miscellaneous questions
• Contact Form
• First few weeks
• Manage your student information overview
• Student record overview
• Camsis overview
• Extended Self-Service (ESS)
• Logging into CamSIS
• What CamSIS can do for you
• Personal information overview
• Changing your name
• Changing Colleges
• Residing outside the University's precincts
• Applying for person(s) to join you in Cambridge
• Postgraduate students overview
• Code of Practice for Master's students
• Code of Practice for Research Students
• Postgraduate student information
• Requirements for research degrees
• Terms of study
• Your progress
• Rules and legal compliance overview
• Freedom of speech
• Public gatherings
• Disclosure and barring service overview
• Cambridge life overview
• Student unions
• Extra-curricular activities overview
• Registering societies
• Military, air, and sea training
• Food and accommodation
• Transport overview
• Bicycles and boats
• Your course overview
• Undergraduate study
• Postgraduate study overview
• Changes to your student status (postgraduates only) overview
• Applying for a change in your student status (postgraduates only)
• Changing your mode of study
• Withdrawing from the University
• Allowance/exemption of research terms
• Withdrawal from Study
• Reinstatement
• Changing your course registration
• Changing your department/faculty
• Changing your supervisor
• Exemption from the University composition fee
• Confirmation of Study: Academic Verification Letters
• Extending your submission date
• Medical intermission (postgraduates)
• Non-medical intermission (postgraduates)
• Returning from medical intermission
• Working away
• Working while you study
• Postgraduate by Research Exam Information
• Research passports
• Engagement and feedback
• Student elections
• Graduation and what next? overview
• Degree Ceremonies overview
• The ceremony
• Academical dress
• Photography
• Degree ceremony dates
• Eligibility
• The Cambridge MA overview
• Degrees Under Statute B II 2
• Degree certificates and transcripts overview
• Academic Transcripts
• Degree Certificates
• After Graduation
• Verification of Cambridge degrees
• After your examination
• Exams overview
• Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught overview
• All students timetable
• Undergraduate exam information overview
• Postgraduate examinations overview
• Examination access arrangements overview
• Research programmes
• Taught programmes
• Writing, submitting and examination overview
• PhD, EdD, MSc, MLitt overview
• Research Best Practice
• Preparing to submit your thesis
• Submitting your thesis
• Word limits
• The oral examination (viva)
• After the viva (oral examination)
• After the examination overview
• Degree approval and conferment overview
• Final thesis submission
• Examination allowances for certain Postgraduate degrees (except PhD, MSc, MLitt and MPhil by thesis degrees)
• Requesting a review of the results of an examination (postgraduate qualifications)
• Higher degrees overview
• Higher doctorates
• Bachelor of divinity
• PhD under Special Regulations
• Faith-provision in University exams
• Publication of Results
• Exam Support
• Postgraduate by Research
• EAMC overview
• Annual Reports of the EAMC
• Dates of meetings
• Frequently asked questions
• Guidance notes and application forms
• Resources overview
• Build your skills
• Research students
• Fees and financial assistance overview
• Financial assistance overview
• General eligibility principles and guidance
• Cambridge Bursary Scheme funding overview
• What you could get
• Scottish students
• EU students
• Clinical medics and vets
• Independent students
• Extra scholarships and awards
• Undergraduate Financial Assistance Fund
• Postgraduate Financial Assistance Fund
• Realise Financial Assistance Fund
• The Crane Fund
• Loan Fund I
• External Support 
• Support from your Funding Sponsor
• Guidance for Academic Supervisors and College Tutors
• Fees overview
• Funding overview
• Mosley, Worts, and Frere Travel Funds
• Support for UKRI Studentship Holders
• Student loans overview
• US loans overview
• Application procedure
• Entrance and Exit Counselling
• Cost of attendance
• What type of loan and how much you can borrow
• Interest rates for federal student loans
• Proof of funding for visa purposes
• Disbursement
• Satisfactory academic progress policy
• In-School Deferment Forms
• Leave of absence
• Withdrawing and return to Title IV policy
• Rights and Responsibilities as a Borrower
• Managing Repayment
• Consumer information
• Submitting a thesis — information for PhD students
• Private loans
• Veteran affairs benefits
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Student support

Changing Your Supervisor

In certain circumstances, you may wish to change your supervisor.

You should discuss a change of supervisor with your current and potential supervisors, your College Tutor and relevant colleagues in your Department. 

Please note that if you are changing supervisor within the same Department, it is normally possible to manage this change locally without submitting a formal application via your CamSIS self-service. Please therefore contact your Department in the first instance and do not apply via CamSIS unless advised to do so.

If you are not self-funded, you will need to let your funding body or sponsor know about your change of supervisor. The terms and conditions of your funding may dictate whether a change of supervisor and/or topic is permitted.

If necessary, you can apply to change your supervisor via your CamSIS self-service (but please see above regarding changes within the same Department ). Information on how to do this is available on the ‘ Applying for a change in your student status’ page.  If your new supervisor is in a different Department you will instead need to submit an application to change Department.  The change of supervisor will be managed as part of that process.

If you are requesting a 'fresh start', please make this clear in your application. A 'fresh start' is where you completely restart the course which resets the clock for your submission deadline and fees. You will be liable for the full fees for the course at the rate for the academic year in which the fresh start takes effect, in addition to any fees paid prior to the change of course. Fresh starts are rare and if you believe one is appropriate for you, you should discuss this with your supervisor and department before applying for a change of department.

Once submitted, your application will be considered by your current supervisor, department, College and Degree Committee before arriving at the Student Registry for the final decision.

If you are not self-funded, you will need to let your funding body or sponsor know about your change of supervisor. 

If you have any questions about changing your supervisor, please submit a query here:  student-registry-help.admin.cam.ac.uk

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, what to do if you are thinking of changing your phd topic or field.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 18 June, 2022

Completing your PhD research project is often a lengthy process that will at some stage almost certainly involve changes in your initial plans. The proposal you submitted when applying may have been written more than nine months before even starting the PhD. Changes are the norm, but the degree of change can vary considerably. This article outlines some considerations and actions to take if you are contemplating changing your topic or even your field.

A. When you need to consider the type of PhD you are doing

An initial factor to consider is the type of PhD you are writing, whether it is producing a number (usually three) of related articles which together form the thesis or the development of a thesis/dissertation ( monograph ). Projecting forward three possible articles is demanding, and plans may therefore change quite late in the PhD process if you are taking this option. 

Suggested action

Regardless of the degree of change, the best first step to take is to seek the advice of your supervisor/advisor , who will be best placed to advise you on what you need to do and the extent of the changes to make. 

B. When your learning evolves as you progress in your PhD

In some systems, such as in the American style of PhD programmes , it is common to write and defend a more substantial proposal, called a Prospectus , at the end of the first year of studies. The first year on these programmes often covers issues related to methodology at the PhD level, and your own research is almost certainly going to change in some way as a result. 

The first two years are going to involve considerable reading around your chosen topic. Searching for answers to your initial research questions will reveal that some have already been answered. It is also likely that you will make discoveries suggesting additional or even alternative research routes that can be pursued. They add the novelty factor to your research, which is perhaps the most prized attribute of a research project. These new openings may lead you to modify the direction of your initial plans if you see more fruitful possibilities to make a contribution. 

Suggested actions

In all these scenarios, it may be possible to tweak the research question(s) to:

• Open up more possibilities.
• Narrow down their scope to be more readily answerable.
• Slightly shift direction to find a new area to explore.

Again, seeking advice from your supervisor is best here. Consulting with second supervisors or other professors with whom you share interests will also often help.

Note : Be aware that acquiring too many opinions and advice can also become confusing if you receive varying or contradictory answers.

C. When more serious scenarios are involved with your PhD

Sometimes, changes become necessary because of events outside of your control that impact your initial plans. This could be because of:

• Scientific developments in your area of expertise
• Finding new research which covers a similar area to your own
• Serious repercussions resulting from external factors, such as a pandemic or unexpected conflict

Sometimes, other factors can also prove more challenging: the chosen type of data may not become available or may not yield the results you were expecting or hoping for .

To address these issues, it may still be possible to make small changes to your central research question(s), which will generate new information. Perhaps you can still change the data source, adjust your methods slightly and carry out the research regardless.

Alternatively, you may be able to adopt a different theoretical approach to the same problem, or bring in a different approach from an outside discipline.

As always, your supervisor and other academics may be able to offer good advice .

D. When you are feeling disillusioned or demotivated about the PhD

Sometimes, you might just lose motivation , feel bored with the studies or feel that the research is going nowhere.

In this case, before you decide to take any drastic decisions, it might just be a good idea to get some distance from your studies, take a break and do something completely different. Then, when you’re feeling rested, come back to the research with fresh eyes and reassess the situation. (If this is the case, you may also find this article useful: What to do when you Lose the Motivation to Complete your PhD )

In research, change is to be expected : ideas develop, research pushes forward to open new doors… or sometimes, closes them. If you encounter a problem, it does not necessarily mean you have to make big and drastic changes to your overall PhD project. Often, a minor amendment here or an infinitesimal tweak there will be enough. Whatever you choose to do, always discuss your concerns and plans with your supervisor to get the perspective and guidance you need to move forward in the best and most efficient way possible.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Choosing the Right PhD Topic

Charlesworth Author Services 18/06/2022 00:00:00

Finding the Right Place to do your PhD

Charlesworth Author Services 25/05/2021 00:00:00

How to develop an excellent PhD Supervisor relationship

Charlesworth Author Services 24/04/2020 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 1: Writing an effective PhD thesis

Charlesworth Author Services 02/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 3: The right mindset for academic paper writing

Bitesize Webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 4: How to sell yourself as a researcher

Bitesize Webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 5: Key team working skills

Importance of writing the Scope and Delimitations of your study

Charlesworth Author Services 17/03/2022 00:00:00

Novelty effect: How to ensure your research ideas are original and new

Charlesworth Author Services 12/01/2022 00:00:00

Developing and framing a Research Question for different types of studies

Charlesworth Author Services 23/03/2022 00:00:00