supervisor to thesis

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.

• Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Introduction  

• Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures
• Advice on program of study, research and professional development
• Meetings/consultation
• Financial assistance
• Intellectual property
• Publications
• Withdrawal of supervisory duties
• Accommodation

Introduction

Effective graduate student supervision requires complex interactions between graduate students and their supervisors. The role of a supervisor is threefold: to advise graduate students, monitor their academic progress, and act as a mentor. Supervisors not only provide guidance, instruction and encouragement in the research activities of their students, but also take part in the evaluation and examination of their students’ progress, performance and navigation through the requirements of their academic program with the goal to ensure that their students are successful.

Supervisors are responsible for fostering the intellectual and scholarly development of their students. They also play an important role in providing advice about professional development and both academic and non-academic career opportunities, as they are able, and based upon the student’s career interests. 

While these expectations apply to all graduate students, supervising PhD students reflects a longer-term, more substantive commitment.  The privilege to supervise PhD students requires that the supervisor hold Approved Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor (ADDS) status. The intent of ADDS policy is to ensure that faculty have the appropriate knowledge to facilitate excellence in PhD supervision.

return to top

  Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures

Effective graduate student supervision requires a knowledge and understanding of the University’s requirements and expectations.  To this end, supervisors should:

2.1    Be knowledgeable and remain updated on department, Faculty and University regulations, policies and procedures, and have these protocols guide the supervisors’ decision-making and behaviour as they interact with graduate students. Supervisors are encouraged to take the necessary steps to be well-informed with those Policies identified in section 1.2 .

2.2    Be familiar with the support services available to students and faculty at the University including those articulated in section 1.2 . This information is normally available through department graduate co-ordinators, Faculty Graduate Studies Offices, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA), the Graduate Student Association (GSA) or the University Secretariat.

2.3   Be informed about University of Waterloo policies and procedures that inform academic integrity  (Office of Research).

2.4    Be aware of the University of Waterloo and Tri-Agency policies and procedures associated with the conduct of research.   Where appropriate, supervisors should be prepared to provide guidance to students on:

• The responsible conduct of research, with particular emphasis on the Tri-Agency Framework as defined in the Faculty Association of University of Waterloo (FAUW) /University of Waterloo memorandum of Agreement (Section 14).
• The ethical conduct of research  (Office of Research) involving animals, animal or human tissues, and human participants

2.5   Have knowledge of the policies and procedures that govern international travel and security that can be found at Waterloo International.

return to top  

  Advice on program of study, research and professional development

As noted above, supervisors are expected to serve as mentors to their graduate students.  To this end, supervisors should be prepared to provide well-informed advice on academics and professional development.  More specifically, supervisors should be prepared to advise students on:

2.6    An academic program that is challenging, at the appropriate level for the degree being sought, and that can be accomplished within commonly understood and desirable time and resource expectations of the student and the supervisor.

2.7    The choice of courses and seminars needed to fulfil the degree requirements.

2.8    The development and construct of a research topic and proposal.

2.9    The development of a communication plan with the supervisory/advisory committee as to how the student’s progress will be assessed (including during thesis writing and completion), and the role of advisory committee members in the assessment.

2.10    The availability of internships, practica, co-op or other experiential learning opportunities as part of the program.

2.11    The availability of professional development resources for Waterloo graduate students to help advance the students’ career objectives.

Meetings/consultation 

The establishment and communication of common expectations are critical elements to positive experiences for both graduate students and their supervisors.  Achieving these outcomes can be facilitated by regular meetings and/or consultation between students, their supervisors, and where appropriate advisory committees. Especially important is timely feedback on students’ written submissions. 

The University encourages supervisors to:

2.12    Ensure, especially important in the case of doctoral students, that the student has:

• An advisory committee as required.
• A program of study consistent with department and Faculty requirements that has been approved by the advisory committee as required.
• A research plan that is appropriate in breadth, depth and time to completion (see  Milestones in master's and doctoral programs ).

2.13    Arrange for regular (as agreed by the student and supervisor) meetings (which may involve the advisory committee) with students for consultation to ensure steady progress. The frequency of such meetings will depend on the discipline/field of study, type of program, and the student’s progress. At least two, preferably more, meetings should be arranged in each academic term. Supervisors should also be reasonably accessible for meetings requested by their students. The approach to these student meetings should be individualized to reflect the needs of the student. For example, some students may need more support while other may need less.

2.14    Communicate their evaluation of student progress to the department once a year or more often if required. The report should clearly indicate the status of the student’s progress (i.e., satisfactory or unsatisfactory).  In the latter case, the report must include a clearly articulated set of conditions that if satisfied will restore the student’s status to satisfactory. Where the supervisor feels that the student will have serious difficulties finishing the program, the supervisor, in consultation with the advisory committee as appropriate, will inform in writing, both the student and the graduate officer of the nature of the problem(s), suggested remedies and may recommend withdrawal from the program.  More information on assessing students’ progress can be found in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar.

2.15    Thoroughly review and provide constructive feedback on all written materials relevant to the thesis or research paper submitted by their students. The supervisor and the student are encouraged to establish in writing expectations on what constitutes timely feedback; a timeframe of two to three weeks depending on the complexity of the document is commonly applied. However, this can vary depending on various circumstances such as travel or vacation.  These circumstances should be discussed between the supervisor and student.

2.16   Have knowledge of the guidelines for evaluating students’ progress in a research program  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar).

2.17   Inform students about the broad spectrum of resources available  (Writing and Communication Centre) to facilitate development of oral communication and writing skills.

2.18    Be active and supportive in promoting students’ well-being.  This may include:

• Inquiring about a student’s well-being, as appropriate.
• Directing students to appropriate support services , including Mental Health and Wellness resources  (Campus Wellness).
• Displaying empathy towards the student.

2.19    Complete as appropriate the University requirements for Sexual violence awareness, referral and support training  (Human Rights, Equity and Inclusion Office) to understand how to respond to disclosures of sexual violence and refer students to the appropriate supports.

The University recognizes that supervisors will be away from the University for extended periods of time (e.g., sabbatical, satellite campus, visiting professorship).  Being physically away from the University does not preclude a supervisor from remaining engaged with their graduate students.  In cases where the supervisor will not be available either in person or via electronic communications, the supervisor should:

2.20    Inform students, prospective students and the department of any anticipated extended period where communication will not be occurring. In cases when the absence is for a period of two months or more, supervisors should arrange for suitable communication methods. Interim supervision also must be arranged, for example, using members of advisory committees. Supervisors must inform the student’s department (chair/graduate officer) of the arrangements made for the period of absence, including supervision of laboratory or field work where graduate students continue to work during the absence.

2.21    Ensure students know that in situations where a supervisor works away from campus for two months or more and where their students can accompany the supervisor, the decision to remain on campus or to follow the supervisor rests entirely with the student. Students shall face no pressure (explicit or implicit) or consequences when making this choice and are not required to provide any reason.

As with the departmental representatives, supervisors have responsibility to advance safety.  More specifically, supervisors should:

2.22    Ensure a safe working environment both on and off campus (working alone, field work) by assessing hazards and implementing appropriate controls. This must be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Policy 34  (Secretariat) and department and Faculty regulations.  All supervisors must complete mandatory health and safety supervisor awareness training  (Safety Office) and must ensure that graduate students complete both mandatory and work-specific safety training.  More information can be found on the Safety Office website.

2.23    Ensure that students obtain additional training when new safety risks arise and ensure training is kept up to date.

Inherent to graduate education are the dissemination of knowledge and the participation in scholarly activities away from the University campus.  Travel (domestic and international) can include fieldwork, conferences, course work and other work related to the thesis. Supervisors are encouraged to support students’ travel to accomplish these important objectives.  Supervisors should:

2.24    Follow or encourage students to follow Policy 31  (Secretariat) that governs University-sanctioned travel.

2.25    Categorize and report risk associated with travel. Low risk  (Safety Office) are activities for which it is expected that participants will encounter hazards that are no greater than what they encounter in their everyday lives. Examples of significant risk (e.g. industrial sites, remote regions etc.) are noted on the Safety Office website .  Travel or field work that involves significant risk must be documented using the Fieldwork Risk Management Form from the Safety Office .  For low risk activities off campus, supervisors should:

• Provide advice on preparation for pre-departure orientation and planning for any travel and including associated risk, as they are able;

2.26    Document the student(s) location and duration of travel, including personal and emergency contact information. Review the material provided by Waterloo International to understand how to best mitigate risk and ensure safety for international travel.

2.27    Encourage students to register using the Pre-departure Travel Form at Waterloo International .

2.28    Consult the Government of Canada Travel Advice and Advisories web page for the international destination and discuss the mitigation of risk with the students to the destination.

 Financial assistance

Supervisors regularly provide financial support for their graduate students.  Both the supervisor and the student benefit when a clear understanding exists of the value of funding, and the academic outcomes that should occur from the supported activities.  Specifically, supervisors should:

2.29    Be informed about the spectrum of funding opportunities available through the department, Faculty and Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA) for students in financial need and to communicate these sources to student.

2.30   Communicate clearly and in writing to their students the terms (e.g., amounts, length of time, conditions) of the financial commitment being made when financial assistance is to be provided from research grants or contracts under the supervisor’s direction.

2.31    Support students’ understanding of their funding, including a consideration of student expenses (primarily tuition and housing) and taxation, if appropriate.  

Intellectual property 

Increasingly, students and supervisors enter into their academic relationships with previously established intellectual property (IP).  Moreover, students and supervisors may have an expectation that their collective work may produce new IP.  Best practices include the articulation of students’ and supervisors’ understanding of IP relationships at regular intervals throughout the students’ academic program.  More specifically, supervisors should: 

2.32    Discuss issues related to intellectual property such as patents, software, copyright, and income from sales and royalties, and inform students of University policies about intellectual property and the conduct of research. It should be recognized that, in accordance with Policy 73  (Secretariat), intellectual property normally is owned by the creators. However, the University retains a royalty-free right to use, for educational and research purposes, any intellectual property created by faculty, staff and students. Ideally, supervisors and students should enter into a written agreement that expresses IP owned by either party prior to beginning the research relationship and the default way in which IP created by the researchers’ joint activities will be owned.  A common example is an assumption in the absence of an explicit agreement of joint IP ownership, with each researcher owning an equal share.

2.33    Ensure that students are aware of implications and/or obligations regarding intellectual property of research conducted under contract. If appropriate, discuss with their students and any research partners the protection of intellectual property by patent or copyright. Any significant intellectual contribution by a student must be recognized in the form of co-authorship. Supervisors must convey to students, in advance of publication, whether they intend to recognize the student as co-author for work under contract.

Publications 

Academic outputs – in various forms – document and demonstrate ownership of creative research and other scholarly activities.  These outputs are important for advancing knowledge and catalyzing additional scholarly activity in these areas and should be encouraged.  When supervisors and graduate students work collectively on these academic works, it is important for both that their relative contributions are represented appropriately.  To achieve these goals, supervisors should:

2.34    Discuss with their students, at an early stage of their program, authorship practices within the discipline and University policies about publications ( Policy 73  on the Secretariat website). 

2.35    Discuss and reach agreement with students, well in advance of publication and ideally at the outset of collaboration, the way in which authorship will be shared, if appropriate, between the supervisor, the student and other contributors for work conducted under contract.

2.36    Encourage the dissemination of students’ research results by publication in scholarly and research journals, presentation at conferences (domestic or international) and seminars;

2.37    Motivate the dissemination of research through non-traditional or non-academic avenues (e.g. Open Access resources, public presentations, and popular media).

Withdrawal of supervisory duties 

In rare cases supervisors may determine that they are not prepared or able to continue in a supervisory capacity.  When this occurs, the supervisor is required to:

2.38    Follow the guidelines in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar regarding University Responsibilities Regarding Supervisory Relationships that outlines the steps for dissolution of the supervisory relationship.

back to top  

Accommodation 

The University is eager to establish conditions that maximize graduate students’ likelihood of success.  To this end, supervisors:

2.39    Have a duty to engage in accommodations processes with AccessAbility Services , as requested, and to provide appropriate accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

2.40    Remain informed of their roles and responsibilities with respect to accommodations.

<< previous section : Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators

>> next section : Roles and responsibilities of graduate students

Related links

• Home - Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Introduction to the Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators
• Roles and responsibilities of graduate students
• Roles and responsibilities of advisory committees
• Key university policies and reference materials

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Honors Program

• Thesis Supervisor
• Online Submission Instructions
• Online Approval Instructions
• Thesis Extensions
• Publishing in Open Commons

Your choice of Honors thesis supervisor shapes how you personalize the final stages of your academic studies at UConn and in Honors. You will select a thesis supervisor who will work closely with you and serve as a scholarly guide throughout the development, implementation, and conclusion of your thesis project.

What does the thesis supervisor do?

Your thesis supervisor is an expert on your thesis topic and will work closely with you in all stages of your project. Your supervisor is an important mentor for the process of completing your thesis as well as your specific topic, but they are not expected to be knowledgeable about other aspects of Honors.

Your Honors advisor is generally not your Thesis Supervisor; both are important toward your completion of your Honors thesis. Your advisor is knowledgeable about Honors requirements for your major, but they may not know as much about your specific topic. Keep them informed throughout your thesis work, because your Honors advisor must approve both your Thesis Plan and your final thesis . Your Honors advisor will continue to provide advice and support in your final semesters, including your choice of coursework.

Your Honors advisor and your thesis supervisor may be the same person if (a) your thesis topic aligns with your Honors advisor’s research, or (b) your department’s policy is to switch your Honors advisor to your thesis supervisor.

Who can be a thesis supervisor?

Your official thesis supervisor must be a faculty member at UConn (including UConn Health or regional campuses). Graduate students may not serve as official thesis supervisors, although they may be directly and actively involved in your thesis process. Your Honors advisor will need to approve your selection of thesis supervisor.

You should consult faculty members and advisors in your field to find the best person to help guide you through the thesis process. Select someone you can envision working with for multiple semesters; this relationship is critical to the success of your thesis!

Tips for securing, retaining, and managing the relationship with your thesis supervisor:

• Although your thesis timetable will differ based on your department, in general  you should have secured a thesis supervisor no later than the 2 nd semester of your junior year. For some majors, especially the sciences, thesis research arrangements should be made by the end of your sophomore year or very early in your junior year.
• Use the steps in the suggested timeline to learn what faculty members in your department or related departments are working on.
• Request a meeting to discuss shared interests and determine if the partnership is a fit. This in-person meeting is critical; don’t ask someone to be your thesis supervisor via email. Learn more about the best ways to connect with faculty .
• During or after the meeting, confirm with the faculty member that they are willing to serve as your thesis supervisor . A faculty member who agrees to work with you on “Honors research” has not necessarily agreed to supervise your thesis!
• Create a timeline with your thesis supervisor and set expectations for how often you will communicate and meet, as well as any internal deadlines.
• Stay in touch with your thesis supervisor throughout the process. Stick to deadlines, but communicate and seek help when you need it.
• Ask questions about your thesis, your field, and their journey in the field. Make the most of having this mentor.

• Utility Menu

Committee on Degrees in Social Studies

• Thesis Advising

Most students find their thesis  supervisors during the spring term of their junior year.  The supervisor works with them to develop their topic and question, and to determine a schedule for summer research.  

Before you begin your search for a supervisor, take some time to read through  A Guide to Writing a Senior Thesis in Social Studies , where you'll find tips on approaching potential supervisors, choosing the best supervisor for you, and what to do if you encounter problems in your search. Our  Thesis Supervisor Database  allows you to search for supervisors by topic and by region, and is a good place to start if you don't yet have someone in mind. Once you've found a supervisor, you'll need to complete the  Thesis Supervisor Form .

We have found that advising relationships work best when clear expectations have been set at the beginning, so juniors in Social Studies are asked to discuss the following topics with potential supervisors:

1.  How frequently will you meet, and for how long?  

Typically, students meet with their supervisor every week or every other week, for between 30 minutes and one hour.  Meetings may be more frequent during the first semester, when the student is developing the project and conducting research, than in the second semester, when the student is writing and meetings revolve around the review of draft chapters.

2.  What will the student do in advance of each meeting?  

Some supervisors ask their students to turn in something (ranging from an emailed progress report to a draft chapter) by an agreed upon time in advance of each meeting.  In turn, students expect that the supervisor will have read their work and be prepared to discuss it.

3.  What expectations will you set for the summer? 

Some students, particularly those studying international topics, spend a great deal of time over the summer conducting research. Others review the secondary literature on their topic and fine-tune their question, preparing to do their primary research in the fall.  Supervisors and their students should talk about what the student is expected to accomplish over the summer, and should set a schedule for discussing the thesis, either in person or via phone and email. 

4.  What expectations will you set about chapter and draft deadlines?  

Some supervisors ask their students to turn in written work by a specific time (24-72 hours before a meeting) and specify whether drafts should be submitted as hard-copy or emailed.  Many supervisors set dates after which they will not read new material (typically 3 days-1 week before the thesis is due).

5.  How many drafts will the supervisor read?  

Many supervisors read a draft of each chapter, then a draft of the entire thesis, and then selected chapters as needed just before the thesis is due.  Some supervisors read more or less than this.  Supervisors and students should also discuss whether a supervisor is willing to receive rough and unpolished drafts, or whether a student is expected to turn in a draft that has already been proof-read.

6.  What kind of support will the supervisor provide to the student? 

Supervisors can provide three kinds of support: (1) substantive support (an understanding of the substantive topic of the thesis and advice about books to read, other experts to talk to, contacts in the field) (2)  methodological and organizational support (knowledge of the method(s) being used, assistance with interpreting interviews, coding surveys, etc; knowledge about what a thesis looks like and advice about organizing research and pacing)  (3) emotional support (encouragement, advice and support with issues like procrastination and writer’s block).  Students and supervisors should discuss the kind of support the supervisor can provide, as it is uncommon for a supervisor to be able to provide all three kinds of support. 

7.  How will a student get support that cannot be provided by the supervisor?

Supervisors and students should discuss who else at Harvard can provide a student with knowledge of a topic, methodological support, and emotional support. Sources may include other faculty members, tutors in Social Studies, house tutors, and a student’s friends and classmates. All students have the option of taking a year-long thesis writing seminar, facilitated by Social Studies faculty with extensive experience working with thesis writers. Seminar groups meet every other week for 1 ½ hours; students discuss the research and writing process and exchange chapter drafts. Additionally, students can choose to participate in a thesis presentation workshop, consult with one of our departmental Thesis Writing Fellows, or make use of our dedicated thesis writing spaces.

8.  How accessible will the supervisor be to the student?  

Some supervisors are comfortable exchanging emails and phone calls between meetings; others are not.  A student and supervisor should discuss how frequently they expect to be in contact, and how each should reach each other in an emergency.  

• Pre-Concentration Advising
• Concentration Advising

Click  here  to learn more about our support system for thesis writers.

Sample emails to your thesis supervisor

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

Disclaimer: This post may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you make a purchase using the links below at  no additional cost to you.  I only recommend products or services that I truly believe can benefit my audience. As always, my opinions are my own.

General tips for emailing your thesis supervisor

Sample email to thesis supervisor inquiring about potential supervision, sample email to thesis supervisor setting up a meeting, sample email to thesis supervisor sharing post-meeting action points, sample email to thesis supervisor asking for feedback, sample email to thesis supervisor asking for support, sample email to thesis supervisor when not meeting a deadline.

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

Nonetheless, there are a few general tips for emailing your thesis supervisor:

• Properly address your supervisor. In some contexts, it is acceptable that students address their supervisors on a first-name basis. In others, it would be completely unthinkable! So make sure to follow context-specific standards, and learn how to address your supervisor depending on their position and rank in the university hierarchy . When in doubt, always go for the more formal option (Dr. x, Professor x, Prof. Dr. x, Mr. x, Ms. x).
• Keep your emails short. No one wants to read an email of the length of a novel. Too much text can bury your main request. Always state clearly what you want. Don’t expect your thesis supervisor to read between the lines.
• Create accompanying calendar invites to your emails. Once you and your thesis supervisor/s agree on a meeting date via email, make sure that you send everyone involved a calendar invite via email. It will be greatly appreciated.
• Don’t overthink your emails too much. You may obsess about formulating a certain sentence or making sure no word is missing and no grammatical mistake is made. While emails to your supervisor should not read like a jotted-down text message, overthinking your emails is also a waste of time. Your supervisor will not judge you if your email includes one whacky sentence or a single spelling mistake.

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

Successful (postgraduate) students are proactive and take matters into their own hands. Reaching out to their thesis supervisors to set up a meeting is one part of it. The following sample email contains a simple request from a student to meet with her thesis supervisor.

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

Sometimes, it does not make sense to wait for feedback until the next supervision meeting. Of course, students should not bombard their supervisors with constant questions via email. However, a kind request once in a while is usually accepted and appreciated. The following sample email showcases a student asking for feedback.

As a student, it can also happen that you get stuck. Often, it is better to reach out and ask your thesis supervisor for support, both in terms of content or any other challenges you experience. Don’t suffer in silence. The following sample email shows an example of a student asking for support.

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

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Asking for a recommendation letter from a PhD supervisor

How many conferences postgrads should attend, related articles.

How to find a reputable academic dissertation editor

How to deal with procrastination productively during thesis writing

Better thesis writing with the Pomodoro® technique

PhD thesis types: Monograph and collection of articles

Duties of a thesis supervisor and the supervision plan

The instruction belongs to the following themes.

• Supervising theses

Search for degree programme

Open university programmes.

• Open university Flag this item

Bachelor's Programmes

• Bachelor's Programme for Teachers of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Agricultural Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Applied Psychology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Art Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Biology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Chemistry Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Computer Science (TKT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Cultural Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher (KLU, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Education (LO-KT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Educational Psychology (LO-KP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Craft Teacher Education (KÄ) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Early Education Teacher (SBP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Early Education Teacher (VO) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (PED, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (YL and AKT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Home Economics Teacher (KO) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Special Education (EP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Environmental and Food Economics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Environmental Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Food Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Forest Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Geography Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Geosciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in History Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Languages Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Law Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Logopedics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Mathematical Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Molecular Biosciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Pharmacy Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Philosophy Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Physical Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Politics, Media and Communication Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Psychology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Science (BSC) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Social Research Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Social Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Society and Change Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in the Languages and Literatures of Finland Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Veterinary Medicine Flag this item

Master's and Licentiate's Programmes

• Degree Programme in Dentistry Flag this item
• Degree Programme in Medicine Flag this item
• Degree Programme in Veterinary Medicine Flag this item
• International Masters in Economy, State & Society   Flag this item
• Master ́s Programme in Development of health care services Flag this item
• Master's Programme for Teachers of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Agricultural Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Agricultural, Environmental and Resource Economics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Area and Cultural Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Art Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Atmospheric Sciences (ATM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Changing Education Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Chemistry and Molecular Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Computer Science (CSM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Contemporary Societies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Cultural Heritage Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Culture and Communication (in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Data Science Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher (KLU, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Education (LO-KT) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Educational Psychology (LO-KP) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Craft Teacher Education (KÄ) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Early Education (VAKA) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (PED, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (YL and AKT) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Home Economics Teacher (KO) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Special Education (EP) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in English Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Environmental Change and Global Sustainability Flag this item
• Master's Programme in European and Nordic Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Finnish and Finno-Ugrian Languages and Cultures Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Food Economy and Consumption Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Food Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Forest Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Gender Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Genetics and Molecular Biosciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Geography Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Geology and Geophysics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Global Politics and Communication Flag this item
• Master's Programme in History Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Human Nutrition and Food-Related Behaviour Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Integrative Plant Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Intercultural Encounters Flag this item
• Master's Programme in International Business Law Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Languages Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Law Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Life Science Informatics (LSI) Flag this item
• Master's programme in Linguistic Diversity and Digital Humanities Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Literary Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Logopedics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Materials Research (MATRES) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Mathematics and Statistics (MAST) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Neuroscience Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Particle Physics and Astrophysical Sciences (PARAS) Flag this item
• Master's programme in Pharmaceutical Research, Development and Safety Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Pharmacy Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Philosophy Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Politics, Media and Communication Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Psychology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Russian, Eurasian and Eastern European Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Scandinavian Languages and Literature Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social and Health Research and Management Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social Research Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social Sciences (in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Society and Change Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Theoretical and Computational Methods (TCM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Translation and Interpreting Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Translational Medicine Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Urban Studies and Planning (USP) Flag this item
• Master’s Programme in Global Governance Law Flag this item
• Nordic Master Programme in Environmental Changes at Higher Latitudes (ENCHIL) Flag this item

Doctoral Programmes

• Doctoral Programme Brain and Mind Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Atmospheric Sciences (ATM-DP) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Biomedicine (DPBM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Chemistry and Molecular Sciences (CHEMS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Clinical Research (KLTO) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Clinical Veterinary Medicine (CVM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Cognition, Learning, Instruction and Communication (CLIC) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Computer Science (DoCS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Drug Research (DPDR) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Food Chain and Health Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Gender, Culture and Society (SKY) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Geosciences (GeoDoc) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in History and Cultural Heritage Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Human Behaviour (DPHuB) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Integrative Life Science (ILS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences (DENVI) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Language Studies (HELSLANG) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Law Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Materials Research and Nanoscience (MATRENA) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Mathematics and Statistics (Domast) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Microbiology and Biotechnology Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Oral Sciences (FINDOS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Particle Physics and Universe Sciences (PAPU) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Philosophy, Arts and Society Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Plant Sciences (DPPS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Political, Societal and Regional Changes (PYAM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Population Health (DOCPOP) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in School, Education, Society and Culture Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Social Sciences Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Sustainable Use of Renewable Natural Resources (AGFOREE) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Wildlife Biology (LUOVA) Flag this item

Specialist training programmes

• Multidisciplinary studies for class teachers (teaching in Finnish) Flag this item
• Multidisciplinary studies for class teachers (teaching in Swedish) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (ELO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (LEO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (VEO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies in subject teacher education Flag this item
• Spe­cific Train­ing in Gen­eral Med­ical Prac­tice Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Clinical Mental Health Psychology Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Neuropsychology Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Environmental Health and Food Control (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Equine Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Food Production Hygiene Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Infectious Animal Diseases (new) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Production Animal Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Community and Hospital Pharmacy (for B.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Community and Hospital Pharmacy (for M.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Industrial Pharmacy (for B.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Industrial Pharmacy (for M.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Dentistry Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Hospital Chemistry Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Hospital Microbiology Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Medicine, 5-year training Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Medicine, 6-year training Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Environmental Health and Food Control Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Equine Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, general veterinary medicine Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Infectious Animal Diseases (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Production Animal Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Trainer Training Programme in Integrative Psychotherapy Flag this item
• Training Programme for Psychotherapists Flag this item
• Language Centre
• Open University

Supervision work is closely linked to the intended learning outcomes of the degree and thesis as well as the related grading criteria. In accordance with the Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights at the University of Helsinki, the student must receive instruction both during their studies and while writing their thesis.  See here for instructions on ensuring that your supervision is aligned with the learning outcomes.

On this page

Supervision principles.

The Rector decides on the principles of supervision, including the rights and obligations of the student and the supervisor. The degree programme’s curriculum must contain instructions on how to prepare a personal study plan, along with the practices for approving and updating the plan. Please review the curriculum of your faculty and the thesis grading criteria in order to ensure that your supervision is aligned with the learning outcomes.

In the Rector’s decision, supervision refers to the support provided for the student’s or doctoral candidate’s learning process as they change, gain experience and grow as an expert. As a whole, supervision consists of communication, advice, instruction and special guidance. Supervision and counselling can be organised in a group led by the supervisor, at a seminar, in a peer group of students or doctoral candidates organised by the supervisor or in a personal meeting separately agreed between the supervisor and the student/doctoral candidate. Supervision and counselling can also be provided electronically through, for example, Moodle or other teaching tools available. 

Members of the teaching and research staff provide counselling that is related to teaching and research and requires knowledge of the content of different studies and disciplines. This counselling may concern, for example, personal study plans or thesis supervision. 

Guidance and counselling are provided in the Finnish and Swedish-language and multilingual degree programmes in Finnish or Swedish depending on the student’s native language or in English or another language as agreed with the student. If the student’s native language is a language other than Finnish or Swedish, guidance and counselling are provided in English or, if agreed with the student, in another language. In English-language master’s programmes and doctoral programmes, guidance can also be provided solely in English.

The degree programme steering group is responsible for ensuring that each student is appointed with a primary supervisor who is responsible for the supervision of their thesis. Additional supervisors may also be appointed. Your supervision plan can be used to agree on the responsibilities related to the supervision.

Supervision as interaction and the supervision plan

Supervision is about interaction with responsibilities that are divided between the different parties of the supervision relationship. Ambiguities related to supervision are often due to the parties’ different expectations regarding the content and responsibilities of the supervision and the fact that the parties are often unaware of the others’ expectations. Below, you can find a table that serves as a great tool for considering the different rights and obligations related to supervision

The policies and practices of supervision should be discussed in the early stages of the thesis process. The supervisor and the student may also prepare a written supervision plan that clarifies the schedule for the supervision and the thesis work as well as the content of the supervision. The plan can also be utilised if any problems arise or you fall behind schedule.

Topics the supervisor should incorporate in the supervision

When supervising a student’s thesis work, remember to pay attention to the following topics:

• the responsible conduct of research and avoiding cheating
• guiding the student in matters related to data protection  
• matters related to open access publications and the public availability of theses  
• inform the student of the general process of thesis examination and approval and the related schedule 

Different faculties may have their own decisions and instructions on thesis supervision. Please read the instructions provided by your faculty.

See also the Instructions for Students

You will find related content for students in the Studies Service.

Bachelor’s theses and maturity tests

Thesis and maturity test in master's and licentiate's programmes.

• Instructions for students
• Notifications for students

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

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

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

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

9645 Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

Participants

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

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

Data collection

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

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

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

Ethical considerations

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

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

The process of expertise attainment in research supervisor model

Theme 1: engagement

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

Curious observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation with reality

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

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

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

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

Theme 2: supervision climate

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

Challenging shortcomings

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

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

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

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

Role ambiguity

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

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

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

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

Various performance

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

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

In one of the Ph.D. student’s words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the students put it this way:

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

Theme 3: maturation

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

Reflection in action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the faculty members also quoted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection on action

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

In this regard, one of the students said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The core variable: interactive accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and limitations of the study

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

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

Implications of the study

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Leila Bazrafkan & Mitra Amini

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

Alireza Yousefy & Nikoo Yamani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Authors’ information

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

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

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

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikoo Yamani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

Consent for publication

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

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2019

Accepted : 29 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Dr. Heidi Toivonen

Psychologist

How to Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You

1. it’s your thesis and nobody else’s.

This sounds like a self-evident thing, right? Surprisingly often, it is not. So what does it mean in terms of how to make your thesis supervision work for you to say that it is your thesis and not your supervisor’s? It means of course that you do all the required parts of the thesis from literature review to the data analysis and the interpretation of the results. But it also means something more than that. It means taking intellectual responsibility of your thesis. Most of the time, your supervisor (at least if it’s me), will give you suggestions, not orders. It’s up to you to decide how you implement them.

If I ask you, for example, to write something in a clearer way, you are the one who has to figure out how to make this happen in actual sentences that you type on your keyboard. If I leave comment in the margins of your thesis asking for you to build a clearer bridge between two paragraphs and you respond to it by writing a comment like “But how?”, the answer to the question is that I won’t tell you. That’s why I’m your supervisor, not your co-author. Your job in writing a thesis is to figure out some things out all by yourself. You need to try and build that clearer bridge, not ask your supervisor to do it for you. If you are still stuck with building this metaphorical bridge after trying, then ask your supervisor. Perhaps they can help you think of some ways to make it happen.

You will make the most out of your thesis supervision and -writing as well as ensure a functioning working relationship with your supervisor, if you from the beginning, at every step of the process, remember that it is your thesis, not theirs. That being said, if you are a BSc or a MSc thesis writer, I do recommend that you always take into account the concrete and specific suggestions of your supervisor, whether they are about doing some part of your analysis differently or reading a specific article. Doing a PhD is a bit different and might occasionally require you to be more independent and even deviate from the suggestions of your supervisor. Sometimes this turns out to be a mistake, sometimes not.

However, I’m by no means arguing that supervisors know everything or that their advice is always flawless. The advice you get from me as a supervisor is not a word of Divine truth but rather a well-informed opinion on something. Doing research is a dynamic and complex process, not a school exercise where things are right or wrong and advance in a linear manner. I’m going to tell you more about that in the next chapter.

2. Have a Flexible Mindset and Tolerance for Dynamic Processes

Research is never a linear and simple process. Doing a thesis is not like taking a multiple choice exam, where an answer is either correct or not. In all likelihood, writing your BSc or MSc thesis is your first experience of doing something that resembles real world research. Welcome to the world of dynamic and complex processes!

I supervise only qualitative theses, that is, works that analyze textual data. My own research has been mainly qualitative, because I have always been most interested in how people talk about things and how they build different phenomena in their verbal interactions. In other words, for me, the most meaningful data is verbal and stems from for example therapy conversations, interviews, or reading groups. Thus, I’m very happy to be acting as a first supervisor in different kinds of qualitative thesis projects. If you want to learn more about qualitative research, you can look for example here .

I might venture to say that the world of qualitative research is even more dynamic than that of quantitative. This means many things. It means that you might decide your actual research question and analytical method only after having already read through all of your transcribed interviews. It means that you might have started happily conducting a Discourse Analysis on transcribed sessions of reading group meetings, while you realize that this method is too detailed and takes you theoretically to a direction where you don’t want to go. Then you switch to Thematic Analysis and do everything again from the start. You will probably write your method section only after you have actually finalized your results, because the back-and-forth, iterative movement between data, analysis, and literature causes the research process to be complex. You cannot articulate what and how you did until you are ready with the results. I could give you more examples, but I think you get the point. So what does all this mean in terms of your thesis supervision?

It means that you will get something that students call “conflicting feedback”. Sometimes, my students complain that my feedback changes from session to session and conflicts with what the second supervisor says. You know what, I would be worried if that was not the case! If the supervisor does not write different and even conflicting comments in the margins of your different thesis versions and if the feedback does not change at all from session to session, it might be because of two things. Either the supervisor is not really reading your thesis and/or has decided only to feedback a certain section once and no more. The other option is that you are stuck with your process and the thesis is not going through the journey it should. There is simply not enough there to give conflicting comments about!

A thesis is a complex piece of work. If you change something in your conclusions and how you discuss them, it probably means something needs to be changed in the introduction. If you change how to present your results, you might have to tinker with something in the method section. From this it often follows that at one point your supervisor will tell you to do X and in the next phase they change their mind and tell you to do Y. In many cases, you will get feedback about your introduction before you have your results figured out. It’s obvious that the introduction needs to be edited once you have the results down. Changing even a small section of your thesis might cause a domino effect requiring further changes made elsewhere in the work. In this kind of scenario, a good supervisor changes the feedback they gave earlier and tells you something different. This might feel like it’s contradictory, but it might still make sense in the bigger picture when you think about it.

In addition, remember that your supervisor is not there reading your thesis over your shoulder all the time. The versions the supervisor sees might be months apart from each other. When the student says “But you said something completely different last time!”, the answer is “Yes I did, but your thesis wasn’t the same then.”

In the world of research, contradictory feedback is the usual feedback you get. This is because normally, you will have several different people looking at your paper and sharing their thoughts of it. Let’s look at how things work outside thesis writing, in the world of peer-reviewed research papers. You will have two experts reviewing your paper. They will not know whose paper they are reading and you will never get to know who these reviewers are. In the usual case, the Reviewer 1 loves something and the Reviewer 2 hates it. The Reviewer 1 tells you to not include certain kind of literature in your discussion and the Reviewer 2 will tell you put more of it there. You get the point? It’s up to the researcher to decide which advice to apply and how, and whether it is possible to find a middle ground that meets the wishes of both reviewers.

In the same way, if you have two supervisors, you are actually lucky if they give you some contradicting feedback. That means you have more than one possible perspective to think about and more than one road to walk! Often, your 1st and 2nd supervisor might have different research interests in their own work and have experience from completely different kinds of analytical methods. They are also just two different human beings. In addition, since a thesis is not a multiple choice exam where answers are either correct or not, your supervisors are more than likely to say different things about your thesis. In the case of your supervisor giving mutually exclusive and completely conflicting advice, the obvious next step is to have an open and transparent conversation about what is the best course of action. Chances are that you will find a good solution as to what to do next by just negotiating, and that’s all that matters in the end.

What I wish to say is that the core in how to make your thesis supervision work for you is having a flexible mindset and being ready for things changing along the journey. Don’t expect the supervision and the feedback you get to be entirely predictable and black-and-white. You are not doing basic calculus where the supervisor can say “right” or “wrong”. Allow the journey to happen with some unexpected turns along the way.

3. Always Maintain Your Professional Attitude

Writing a thesis is not always easy and fun. There will be days of frustration, anger, even despair. In fact, if you don’t at any point feel like you are lost and don’t understand what you are doing, then you are probably not venturing much outside of your comfort zone. As a supervisor, I always try my best to be understanding and compassionate about the personal struggles of the students. Being kind and understanding is also a professional skill and very important in academia that can be quite cold and harsh sometimes. It’s not always easy to stay polite, calm, and nice when to-do’s keep piling up and the stress levels are peaking, but I will always make an effort to stay that way. I hope you will, too.

A professional attitude means that you behave like a polite, mature human being. You take responsibility, respect other people’s time and effort, do what you promise when you promise. Supervisors need to respect their students and students need to respect their supervisors. Without a respectful and professional attitude, no good theses will be written.

In practice, what I mean with maintaining a professional attitude is that you don’t accuse your supervisor for things such as not making sure you can get a high degree or a green light (the official ok to defend your thesis at a colloquium). Sometimes I have heard students accuse their first supervisor for not telling them earlier that they will not be getting a green light for their thesis. This accusation does not make any sense. A green light decision is, at my current university, reached independently by two supervisors. It is given for the version of the thesis the student hands in for their last supervision meeting before “colloquium”, the event where they present their thesis and answer questions about it. The student cannot be told that they are or are not going to get a green light before they actually hand in the last draft of their thesis, the green light version.

In a similar vein, your supervisor cannot promise you a certain grade. They can probably tell you what kind of a grade you would approximately be getting with a certain version of the thesis. However, thesis drafts change all the time. I have seen cases where a relatively decent thesis becomes worse between two meetings, because the student misunderstands crucial feedback. I have also seen how a relatively decent thesis becomes mind-blowingly good in just a couple of weeks. Your supervisor might be a fantastic scholar, but they are not a fortune teller. Hence, don’t ask for a certain grade and don’t assume anything. If you are disappointed about a grade, ask for clarifications for why it was given. Just don’t assume that your supervisor is grading you low because they are mean and don’t care about you.

Examples of non-professional behavior are more than complaining about your grade. Other things I would avoid are sending out countless emails to the supervisor to ask questions to which you need to find an answer yourself. Another thing is not taking into account the feedback your supervisor is giving. I have heard about (but not personally supervised) students who think that they are on top of the academic world and their supervisor is stuck in the Middle Ages. Let me inform you that if you are doing an MSc thesis, then your supervisor has a PhD. Having a PhD in most cases nowadays means having published at least two peer-reviewed scientific articles at the time of the PhD thesis defense. A BSc or a MSc thesis is not a peer-reviewed scientific article.

Try to see your supervisor as an expert of whose knowledge you can benefit in your thesis rather than as someone you need to compete with or challenge. In many cases, when a student thinks they are very smart in challenging their professor, it is actually quite an embarrassing event to be witnessing. Humbleness is a very useful quality in academia in general. It means you know where your limits are and are willing to expand them by learning from others who have already walked further on their journey.

What If There Is No Way to Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You?

It’s time to acknowledge that not all supervisor-student -relationships are fruitful and functional. What does it mean to be professional in case things are just not working out between you and your supervisor? Well, let’s first think about what it means that things are not working. Is your supervisor skipping meetings that you know you are entitled to have? Are you not getting any feedback at all? Is your supervisor acting in a disrespectful way towards you? After trying to discuss the issue with your supervisor directly, do not hesitate to contact other people at your department.

Different universities and departments have different protocols on these things. If the university’s website doesn’t help you to figure out who to talk to, try the study advisor, your second supervisor, or the thesis coordinator. Ask someone -anyone!- what to do.

You don’t need to tolerate substandard supervision. I myself asked to have my supervisor changed during my Master’s, because he would never reply my emails, would not organize the meetings I knew I had a right to, and acted disrespectfully. The new supervisor was great and I ended up doing a decent job. End of story.

Sometimes professional behavior entails asking difficult questions and confronting someone directly about how they do their job. Just be aware that supervision is a two-line highway. I will myself not hesitate to tell a student if they are out of line when example complaining about a no green light decision or are sending me too many emails with questions that they could try asking Google first.

Last Words on How To Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You

I cannot speak for all supervisors in the world, but as a supervisor, I really hope that you will always tell me if you are stuck, lost, confused, or anything like that with your thesis. Tell me if you didn’t understand some feedback or if you need extra help in finding relevant literature. One of the most important rules of acting professionally is that you are honest, open, and ask for what you need. If I don’t know where my student is mentally or academically, I cannot guide them to the best of my capacity.

Lastly, I want to say that I hope writing a good thesis is important to you. If you are not interested or motivated about your thesis, the supervisor should know. Perhaps there is something to be done to make the process more inspiring.

Being a thesis supervisor is a very important job for me, and I take pride in doing it extremely well. I care about the students and their theses (to see how another professor from a different discipline also cares about their supervisees by writing out some rules of engagement, check here ). That’s why you are always welcome to give me feedback, too. That is the only way to keep growing in what one is doing!

Share this:

You must log in to post a comment.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Enrichment Programs

Individualized & Interdisciplinary Studies Program

Guide for thesis supervisors.

Thank you for supervising an individualized major senior thesis project. Your expertise is critical in guiding the student’s project and setting the criteria for its evaluation. The guidelines below outline some considerations particular to individualized major students. They are most appropriate for traditional research projects but may also be relevant to less traditional final projects.

All individualized majors complete a capstone, which provides them an opportunity to integrate knowledge they have acquired during the course of their majors. About 40-45 percent of individualized majors do so by completing a thesis. (The rest complete our capstone course or an approved alternative.)

Thesis projects usually take the form of a traditional research study, but other formats, such as a photo essay, film, website, or piece of creative writing are also possible. Thesis projects, whatever their form, should contribute to the development of knowledge or practice in new ways, involve significant background research, and require sustained attention in the implementation of the project. If the final product takes a less traditional form, it should include a piece of writing that describes the student’s learning process.

Thesis Courses

Some thesis projects will comprise six credits completed over the course of two semesters. This is mandatory for students completing Honors Scholar requirements in their individualized major. Non-honors students may complete a one-semester, three-credit thesis project. Students intending to complete a thesis project must submit a thesis proposal  which they have discussed with their thesis supervisor no later than the last day of classes of the semester before they begin their thesis.

In the social sciences and humanities : In the Fall semester of the senior year, students will typically begin their research by enrolling in a thesis-related research seminar, graduate course, or independent study in their thesis supervisor’s department. During the Spring semester, students will enroll in UNIV 4697W Senior Thesis (for which the thesis supervisor serves as instructor) in which they will complete the research and write the thesis. During this process, the student meets regularly with the thesis supervisor for feedback on data collection, evidence gathering, analysis, and writing.

In the sciences , students may follow a more extended sequence, perhaps two to three semesters of data collection and laboratory work (independent studies or research courses) followed by thesis writing (UNIV 4697W) in the final semester.

Learning Outcomes

Individual faculty will differ in expectations regarding research methodology, theoretical approaches, and presentation of findings. Nonetheless, there are some general criteria and intended learning outcomes for all individualized major thesis projects.

• The student’s research, analysis, and writing on the thesis project should be relevant to their individualized major and represent an opportunity for them to integrate and deepen at least several aspects of study in the major.
• A thesis should do more than summarize the existing literature on a particular topic. It should make an original contribution to the field of study, present new findings in the form of new data, or new, critical interpretations of existing material. It should reflect a good command of the research methodologies in the relevant discipline(s).

Upon completion of the thesis project the student should be able to:

• Define a research question and design a substantial research project.
• Select a methodological approach to address the research question.
• Identify appropriate sources and collect relevant and reliable data that addresses the research question.
• Analyze the strengths and limitations of different scholarly approaches to the question, and recognize the resulting interpretative conflicts.
• Develop an argument that is sustained by the available evidence
• Present that argument in a clear, well-organized manner.

Requirements for Honors Students

As noted above, all Honors students are expected to complete at least six credits of thesis-relevant coursework. In addition, all Honors students are expected to have a second reader and make a public presentation of their thesis project.

Second Reader

We ask Honors students to identify a second reader for their thesis from a relevant discipline, which may be the same as, or different from, the supervisor’s discipline. The second reader will provide the student with a different perspective and may provide additional insights on how to achieve the intended learning outcomes of the thesis. The thesis supervisor, in consultation with the student, determines when to bring the second reader on board. It is the supervisor’s prerogative to define how the grade for the thesis will be determined.

Public Presentation

Honors students are required to make a public presentation of their thesis research in a format negotiated with the thesis supervisor. Where possible, the audience should include the thesis supervisor, the second reader, and an IISP staff member. Other faculty members and the student’s peers may be invited to join the audience, as well.

Existing departmental exhibitions or “Frontiers in Undergraduate Research” make excellent venues for student presentations. If a student cannot find a venue for his or her presentation, please consult with IISP and we will coordinate one.

Note: Although non-Honors students who are completing a thesis are not required to have a second reader or make a public presentation, we would certainly welcome them to do so.

Honors Advising

An IISP staff member serves as Honors Advisor to each individualized major following an Honors Scholar plan of study. The staff member’s role as an Honors advisor is to coordinate and facilitate students’ plans for completing Honors Scholar requirements, including the thesis, and to monitor progress toward completion.

Thesis Course Registration

Specific instructions for registering for UNIV 4697W are available on the Capstone page .

We very much appreciate your willingness to supervise an individualized major’s senior thesis. If you have any questions about the Individualized Major Program or about supervising an individualized major thesis, please contact IISP staff .

Thesis supervision

Find a thesis supervisor.

Thesis supervisors must be authorized by their Faculty to supervise theses.

Finding a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

Before thinking about a supervisor, students should make sure they are committing to the area of study that most interests them. They should ask themselves whether they are enthusiastic enough about a topic area to sustain this enthusiasm over the period of time it will take to prepare the thesis. Speaking to students and professors who do research in the proposed area of study will help clarify the students’ thoughts. The students should make sure they are well-informed before they approach any potential supervisors.

A professor is not obligated to take on a student if he or she feels the match-up would not be a good one, or if the professor lacks lab space, time or funding.

A student may have more than one supervisor. When mention is made of the thesis supervisor, it is implicit that there may be a co-supervisor.

• Information to collect before contacting a potential supervisor
• Questions to ask after the meeting with the potential supervisor
• Professors, by research interest

Appointment of a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

From the uoZone Application tab, click Service Requests to create a service request and appoint a thesis supervisor.

Meetings between the supervisor and the student arrow_drop_down

Preliminary meetings.

Before a student begins researching and writing a thesis, the supervisor and the student should have a detailed discussion of expectations and requirements. Below are examples of general and specific issues to be discussed during the preliminary meetings.

As soon as possible, the student should obtain ethics approvals or any other required approvals to conduct research. The student should discuss with the thesis supervisor and visit the  Office of Research Ethics and Integrity  Website.

• General and specific topics to be discussed

Regular meetings

The student and the supervisor should plan to meet regularly whether or not the student has any finished work to show to the supervisor.

If it is a major meeting, the student should draw up and deliver to the supervisor an agenda beforehand. If the meeting is to discuss text that has already been written, the student must send the draft well in advance of the meeting. 

After the meeting, and based on this agenda, the student prepares a brief report on what was discussed and decided, and shares this report with the supervisor.

It is important to be productive at these major meetings, but it is also crucial to just keep in touch.

Components of a typical agenda

• a summary of the purpose of the meeting
• a review of what was discussed at the previous meeting and what has been accomplished to date
• a discussion and clarification of the current topics, ideas and issues
• next steps as a result of this discussion
• agree with a date for the next meeting

Feedback and revision arrow_drop_down

All along during the thesis preparation process, a student will receive feedback and should expect to do revisions. Revising a thesis based on feedback from the thesis supervisor, advisory committee (if applicable) and from the jury is an important part of the thesis preparation process.

Part of the advancement of knowledge that preparing a thesis fosters involves engaging in dialogue and learning from these discussions, learning how to communicate clearly, and responding appropriately to suggestions for improvement

Already a student?

Types of supervision, co-supervision arrow_drop_down.

A joint management with a professor in another discipline may be considered if the research project of a student is favoured.

Cotutelle arrow_drop_down

A doctoral student may prepare a thesis under a cotutelle agreement. You find below additional information to help familiarize yourself with the roles played by each of the stakeholders.  

Learn more about Cotutelle.

Thesis advisory committee arrow_drop_down

In many academic units, a thesis advisory committee, also referred to as thesis committee, is assembled as soon as a student finds a thesis supervisor. Please note that not all academic units have thesis committees, the students must check on the protocol in their own academic unit.

Constitution of the thesis committee

How the thesis committee is formed varies from academic unit to academic unit. The thesis supervisor plays the biggest role by approaching colleagues who have the expertise and inviting them to join the committee.

A thesis committee is made up of:

• the student
• the thesis supervisor, and
• usually at least two other professors.

The thesis supervisor is usually the chair of the thesis committee.

Role of the thesis committee

While the roles and responsibilities of thesis committees may vary from one academic unit to another, members of the committee should provide guidance to the student on thesis planning, research and writing; be available to discuss ideas or for consultation on any other matter related to the thesis; and, if this is the practice within the discipline, evaluate the thesis after submission.

Thesis committees meet according to a schedule set either by the academic unit or by the committee itself. The student is usually responsible for initiating the meetings. When concerns about the progress of the research arise, the supervisor and/or academic unit may require meetings at more frequent intervals.

Useful information

Contracts arrow_drop_down.

Some supervisors and students have contracts or agreements to formalize the expectations and delineate the responsibilities in the preparation of a thesis.

Although these agreements are not considered official documents with force of law, they set out the expectations of the student and supervisor in relation to many of the issues covered in this Website section and help avoid conflict and misunderstandings.

A student should not make assumptions about who will do what in the research and who gets credit for any new discoveries or inventions. A supervisor should not assume the supervised student is aware of any assumptions the supervisor has or any authorship or credit protocols that may exist in the area of research.

Professors who use contracts do so because they have found such agreements are a good tool for helping students achieve their goals and finish their theses. However, while a written agreement can be very useful, one of the keys to a successful supervisor–student relationship is good communication and mutual trust. Both sides need to foster and build on that. 

Absences arrow_drop_down

Sometimes a potential supervisor is approached by a student looking for a thesis supervisor and both the student and professor agree it would be a good match, but the professor is going on an academic leave partway through the period in which the student will be preparing this thesis. In the event of a scheduled absence from the University for more than one month, the thesis supervisor must make the necessary arrangements with his students and the academic unit concerned to ensure that students continue to be accompanied during the supervisor's absence.

A thesis supervisor who is going to be away should let the student know well in advance. The same goes for the student. The student should discuss this with the thesis supervisor well ahead of time. In case of illness, the student should let the supervisor know the expected timeline for recovery.

If the student is planning to suspend work on the thesis for a term or more, for whatever reason, the student needs to apply for and receive approval for a leave of absence. Please note that absence has an impact on eligibility for funding.

Form - Request for leave of absence (PDF)

Professionalism arrow_drop_down

As a student, the development of professional skills—for example, communicating appropriately in writing and in person, responding promptly to e-mails, coming prepared to meetings, following up after meetings, respecting deadlines, tracking changes to the text so that it is easy for the supervisor to review each draft after revisions—is important in the preparation of the thesis. Some faculties offer courses in professional skills.

If the student feels aspects of the supervisor’s behavior are unprofessional, he or she should consult the graduate program director or the chair of the academic unit.

Changing supervisors arrow_drop_down

As for changing supervisors partway through a thesis, this is not recommended. Keep in mind that as long as the thesis is logical and the conclusions drawn from the data are valid, the student and the supervisor do not need to be in total agreement on methodology, analysis or interpretation.

The thesis committee may be able to fill in whatever gaps the student perceives in the relationship with the supervisor. If the research goes off in an unexpected direction, one that is not very familiar to the thesis supervisor, the student could see what opportunities are available and what guidelines the academic unit has for this situation. The student could consider joint supervision as an alternative to finding a new supervisor.

If the student has explored all other options and still wish to change supervisors, he or she should talk to the graduate program director. If the supervisor happens to be the graduate program director, the student should talk to the director of the academic unit. If the student remains uncertain or dissatisfied, he or she should talk to the vice-dean graduate studies of his/her home faculty. Beyond that, the student can talk to the university ombudsperson. The student can request that the exchanges with any or all of these individuals (directors, vice-dean, ombudsperson) remain confidential.

The student should be sure to explore options carefully before withdrawing from the supervisory arrangement—a student who terminates the relationship with a supervisor before finding another supervisor may have difficulty securing another supervisor and compromise the thesis project.

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS

Getting to the main article

Choosing your route

Setting research questions/ hypotheses

Assessment point

Building the theoretical case

Setting your research strategy

Data collection

Data analysis

CONSIDERATION ONE

Things to discuss with your supervisor.

From your supervisor's point of view, this may only be the second time you have met to discuss your dissertation, and it could have been a few weeks or a couple of months since you first discussed your dissertation with them (i.e., STAGE FOUR: Assessment point may have been your first meeting). Therefore, start by briefly recapping what your dissertation is about, including the research questions/hypotheses that you are going to answer.

Next, if you developed a theoretical model for your dissertation (i.e., during STEP FOUR: Set the theoretical model for your dissertation in STAGE FIVE: Building the theoretical case ), it is worth showing this to your supervisor. After all, theoretical models are useful frameworks to describe what you are studying in a clear, succinct, and visual way. More specifically, your theoretical model should: (a) set the boundaries/scope of the research project in terms of the theories and constructs that will be studied and measured; and (b) illustrate the research hypotheses to be tested, and the predictions that are being made (if any) about the relationship between the constructs under study.

If you didn't develop a theoretical model, you should focus on explaining the main constructs you will be studying, and the potential relationships between those constructs. This will help your supervisor to understand the theoretical case for your dissertation upon which your research strategy is based. It will also allow you to spend the majority of the meeting discussing your research strategy, which is the main thing you need to discuss with your supervisor. When you discuss your research strategy, remember to focus on the major aspects of your research strategy rather than the detail and justifications behind all of your decisions. You just won't have time to do this unless your supervisor has given you a long meeting.

During this meeting, we would suggest that you: (a) determine whether your research design, research method and sampling strategy are sufficient; (b) get advice on whether your research strategy is likely to be achievable in the time you have available; (c) check that your research strategy meets your dissertation and university's ethical guidelines; (d) present your measurement procedure, if you have time; and (e) defend the choice that you have made. Each of these considerations is discussed in turn:

Determine whether your research design, research method and sampling strategy are sufficient

The research strategy that you set determines how you are going to carry out (i.e., operationalize) your dissertation. In this respect, your research design, research methods and sampling strategy need to fit with the research hypotheses you have set and the theoretical case you have built for your dissertation. This is important for achieve a good mark. However, these components of your research strategy also have a significant impact on the effort that is required to complete a dissertation. By effort , we mean the practical aspects of going out and collecting your data, which includes everything from setting up your research design, to building a representative sample of your population, gaining access to such data, collecting the data using the research methods you have set, before analysing that data. Whilst effort is not going to get you a good mark by itself, there is a minimum amount of effort that will be expected of you when it comes to carrying out your dissertation. For example, the use of secondary research is often criticised because there is a general expectation that you will go out and collect data in the field (i.e., primary research ), unless the secondary research, and the statistical analysis of that research is substantial. Similarly, the effort of putting together a probability sample can clearly be recognized over a non-probability sample due to the time and care that this takes. A third example would be your sample size , with the effort of collecting larger samples, for the most part, providing you with the ability to carry out more rigorous and extensive data analysis that is not possible with smaller samples.

By examining you research design, research methods and sampling strategy, your supervisor should be able to tell you, often from experience, whether the research you plan to carry out is sufficient for a good grade. There is nothing worse than meeting your supervisor too late when you are getting close to the end of the dissertation process, and finding out that you have not done enough. It is often too late to recover at this stage because you simply run out of time to analyse your data and write up your dissertation.

Get advice on whether your research strategy is likely to be achievable in the time you have available

Just as you don't want your research strategy to be insufficient, you also have to be careful that you don't take on too much, especially when it comes to the data collection phase. There are a number of factors that can affect the achievability of your dissertation, including issues of access (i.e., to people, organisations, data, facilities, and information), the size of the sample that you want, the length of the data collection process, whether you can receive help collecting your data, and what skills you may have to learn. If you are an undergraduate student, some of these factors can be difficult to judge because this will be your first dissertation, but even amongst master's students, this can be difficult. When you explain the research strategy you are using, it's a good idea to ask your supervisor whether they think it will be achievable in the time you have available.

Check that your research strategy meets your dissertation and university's ethical guidelines

Having worked through STEP SIX: Research ethics of STAGE SEVEN: Setting the research strategy , you should understand the ethical requirements arising from your choice of research strategy. However, if you do not know whether your choice of research strategy means that you need to write an Ethics Proposal , complete an Ethics Consent Form , or get permission from an Ethics Committee , we would suggest that you pass your ethical design by your supervisor. By ethical design , we simply mean those components of your research strategy that could undermine the five basic ethical principles you should abide by (i.e., minimising the risk of harm, obtaining informed consent, protecting anonymity and confidentiality, avoiding deceptive practices, and providing the right to withdraw). For example, if the research design involves exposing some participants to situations that may be psychological challenging or invasive, if the research methods involve some form of covert or deceptive aspect, or if the population that you are studying involves collecting data from minors or vulnerable groups, these are the kinds of things you should discuss with your supervisor. Since there is a danger that such ethical designs could undermine one or more of the five basic ethical principles, your dissertation may have to receive either informal or formal ethical approval . If your supervisor feels that you will not be able to get ethical approval, or that such ethical approval could severely delay your dissertation (i.e., since you cannot start collecting data until you have it), your supervisor may be able to advise you how to make small changes to your research strategy and ethical design to reduce the potential problems you could face.

Present your measurement procedure, if you have time

You'll not always have enough time to discuss your measurement procedure, but if there's one thing of detail that's worth asking your supervisor to look over, it's the measurement procedure you've used. This is important because the quality of your data is highly contingent on the quality of your measurement procedure (i.e., the reliability and construct validity of your measurement procedure).

If you've followed Route A: Duplication or Route B: Generalisation , this is not so much of an issue because (a) the measurement procedure you are drawing on in the main journal article should have been shown to be reliable and (b) you will not have made many (if any) changes. However, if you have followed Route C: Extension , especially a method or measurement-based extension , there may have been many changes to the measurement procedure used in the main journal article. Therefore, it is worth asking your supervisor to look over these changes. Unless your supervisor is a subject matter expert, they may only be able to help you with the face validity of the measurement procedure, but this can still be useful to avoid glaring mistakes. Your supervisor may be able to give you advice on things like the statement you read out to research participants to tell them what the research it about, what their ethical rights are, and so forth. They may also be able to offer advice on things like survey length or the number of data points you are trying to record in a structured observation, but for the most part, you should look to the main journal article and literature to determine such things.

Defend the choices that you have made

You don't want to defend your choices for the sake of it. If your supervisor strongly suggests that you change a major component of your research strategy, it would be advisable to seriously consider this. At the same time, unless your supervisor is an expert in your area of interest, you will know the contents of your dissertation far better than your supervisor: the research hypotheses you want to answer, the background literature to your dissertation, the research strategy that you plan to follow, and the justifications for all these choices. Making major changes to the theoretical case or research strategy you have set could require a lot of work, and you don't want to make these changes without being sure they are correct. it's worth remembering that you may have only spent 20 minutes with your supervisor, so some of the judgements your supervisor is making may be based solely of the main points you've put across in a short space of time, rather than a detailed assessment of the theoretical case or research strategy you have built. Therefore, if your supervisor does strongly suggest that you make any major changes, it is worth taking the time to defend the choices you have made in case these changes are unnecessary.

The Acknowledgements Section

How to write the acknowledgements for your thesis or dissertation

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewers: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | January 2024

Writing the acknowledgements section of your thesis might seem straightforward, but it’s more than just a list of names . In this post, we’ll unpack everything you need to know to write up a rock-solid acknowledgements section for your dissertation or thesis.

Overview: The Acknowledgements

• What (exactly) is the acknowledgements section?

Who should you acknowledge?

• How to write the section
• Practical example
• Free acknowledgements template
• Key takeaways

What is the acknowledgements section?

The acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation is where you give thanks to the people who contributed to your project’s success. Generally speaking, this is a relatively brief, less formal section.  

With the acknowledgements section, you have the opportunity to show appreciation for the guidance, support, and resources provided by others during your research journey. We’ll unpack the exact contents, order and structure of this section in this post.

Need a helping hand?

Although this is a less “academic” section, acknowledging the right people in the correct order is still important. Typically, you’ll start with the most formal (academic) support received, before moving on to other types of support.

Here’s a suggested order that you can follow when writing up your acknowledgements:

Level 1: Supervisors and academic staff

Start with those who have provided you with academic guidance, including your supervisor, advisors, and other faculty members.

Level 2: Funding bodies or sponsors

If your research was funded, acknowledging these organisations is essential. You don’t need to get into the specifics of the funding, but you should recognise the important role that this made in bringing your project to life.

Level 3: Colleagues and peers

Next you’ll want to mention those who contributed intellectually to your work, including your fellow cohort members and researchers.

Level 4: Family, friends and pets

Last but certainly not least, you should acknowledge your personal (non-academic) support system – those who have provided emotional and moral support. If Fido kept you company during those long nights hunched over the keyboard, you can also thank him here 🙂

As you can see, the order of the acknowledgements goes from the most academic to the least . Importantly, your thesis or dissertation supervisor (sometimes also called an advisor) generally comes first . This is because they are typically the person most involved in shaping your project (or at least, they should be). Plus, they’re oftentimes involved in marking your final work and so a kind word never hurts…

All that said, remember that your acknowledgements section is personal . So, feel free to adjust this order, but do pay close attention to any guidelines or rules provided by your university. If they specify a certain order or set of contents, follow their instructions to the letter.

How to write the acknowledgements section

In terms of style, try to strike a balance between conveying a formal tone and a personal touch . In practical terms, this means that you should use plain, straightforward language (this isn’t the time for heavy academic jargon), but avoid using any slang, nicknames, etc.

As a guide, you’ll typically use some of the following phrases in the acknowledgements section:

I would like to express my appreciation to… for their help with… I’m particularly grateful to… as they provided… I could not have completed this project without… as this allowed me to… Special thanks to… who did… I had the pleasure of working with… who helped me… I’d also like to recognise… who assisted me with…

In terms of positioning, the acknowledgements section is typically in the preliminary matter , most commonly after the abstract and before the table of contents. In terms of length, this section usually spans one to three paragraphs , but there’s no strict word limit (unless your university’s brief states otherwise, of course).

If you’re unsure where to place your acknowledgements or what length to make this section, it’s a good idea to have a look at past dissertations and theses from your university and/or department to get a clearer view of what the norms are.

Practical Example

Alright, let’s look at an example to give you a better idea of what this section looks like in practice.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Smith, whose expertise and knowledge were invaluable during this research. My sincere thanks also go to the University Research Fund for their financial support.   I am deeply thankful to my colleagues, John and Jane, for their insightful discussions and moral support. Lastly, I must acknowledge my family for their unwavering love and encouragement. Without your support, this project would not have been possible.

As you can see in this example, the section is short and to the point , working from formal support through to personal support. If you’re interested, you can explore a few more examples here .

To simplify the process, we’ve created a free template for the acknowledgements section. If you’re interested, you can download a copy here .

FAQs: Acknowledgements

Can i include some humour in my acknowledgements.

A touch of light humour is okay, but keep it appropriate and professional. Remember that this is still part of an academic document.

Can I acknowledge someone who provided informal or emotional support?

Yes, you can thank anyone who offered emotional support, motivation, or even informal advice that helped you during your studies. This can include friends, family members, or a mentor/coach who provided guidance outside of an academic setting.

Should I mention any challenges or difficulties I faced during my research?

While the acknowledgements section is primarily for expressing gratitude, briefly mentioning significant challenges you overcame can highlight the importance of the support you received. That said, you’ll want to keep the focus on the gratitude aspect and avoid delving too deeply into the challenges themselves.

Can I acknowledge the contribution of participants in my research?

Absolutely. If your research involved participants, especially in fields like social sciences or human studies, acknowledging their contribution is not only courteous but also an ethical practice. It shows respect for their participation and contribution to your research.

How do I acknowledge posthumous gratitude, for someone who passed away during my study period?

Acknowledging a deceased individual who played a significant role in your academic journey can be done respectfully. Mention them in the same way you would a living contributor, perhaps adding a note of remembrance.

For example, “I would like to posthumously acknowledge John McAnders for their invaluable advice and support in the early stages of this research.”.

Is there a limit to the number of people I can acknowledge?

How do i acknowledge a group or organisation.

When thanking a group or organization, mention the entity by name and, if applicable, include specific individuals within the organization who were particularly helpful.

For example, “I extend my thanks to The Speakers Foundation for their support, particularly Mr Joe Wilkins, for their guidance.”

Recap: Key Takeaways

Writing the acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation is an opportunity to express gratitude to everyone who helped you along the way.

Remember to:

• Acknowledge those people who significantly contributed to your research journey
• Order your thanks from formal support to personal support
• Maintain a balance between formal and personal tones
• Keep it concise

In a nutshell, use this section to reflect your appreciation in a genuinely and professionally way.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Metacognitive scaffolding in chemistry education: Investigating student problem-solving approaches and instructor perspectives and practices

Campus location, principal supervisor, additional supervisor 1, additional supervisor 2, year of award, department, school or centre, degree type, usage metrics.

• Pharmaceutical sciences

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

May 21, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

New thesis shows Lynch syndrome should be seen as a common condition

by Karolinska Institutet

Sophie Walton Bernstedt from the Gastroenterology and Rheumatology Unit at the Department of Medicine, Huddinge (MedH), is defending her thesis "Risk factors for colorectal cancer and the impact on life in Lynch syndrome," on 24 May, 2024. The main supervisor is Ann-Sofie Backman (MedH).

"We have investigated various risk factors associated with the development of colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome and what it is like for these patients to live with a greatly increased cancer risk," says Walton Bernstedt.

"There is likely still a large number of patients yet to be identified with Lynch syndrome. It is necessary to identify these patients in time in order to prevent and detect early stage cancer by preventive procedures.

"By implementing routines in follow-up services for this group of patients it is possible to create optimal conditions for early detection. These routines include bowel preparation , but also the quality of the procedure, adaptation to genetic risk but also accommodating psychosocial needs among patients.

"Lynch syndrome no longer should be considered a rare condition. By increasing the knowledge of hereditary cancer in the public we hope to increase the efficiency of cancer preventive measures ."

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Study shows mind wandering is associated with specific kind of brain activity linked to memory and sleep

Ancient viral DNA in the human genome linked to major psychiatric disorders

Study: Newborns whose mother spoke in a mix of languages during pregnancy are more sensitive to a range of sound pitches

6 hours ago

Study finds ultraviolet radiation may affect subcutaneous fat regulation, could lead to new obesity treatments

Regular fish oil supplement use might increase first-time heart disease and stroke risk

12 hours ago

Pedestrians may be twice as likely to be hit by electric/hybrid cars as petrol/diesel ones

Study finds jaboticaba peel reduces inflammation and controls blood sugar in people with metabolic syndrome

13 hours ago

Study reveals how extremely rare immune cells predict how well treatments work for recurrent hives

14 hours ago

Researchers find connection between PFAS exposure in men and the health of their offspring

Researchers develop new tool for better classification of inherited disease-causing variants

Related stories.

New gene markers detect Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancer

Sep 20, 2023

Daily aspirin reduces bowel cancer risk in people with Lynch syndrome

Aug 5, 2019

Lynch syndrome found to be associated with more types of cancers

Jun 4, 2018

Hereditary colon cancer more common in Indonesia, new study finds

Jan 5, 2022

New cancer screening study could affect treatment for thousands in the UK

Sep 18, 2020

Increasing the age limit for Lynch syndrome genetic testing may save lives

May 29, 2017

Recommended for you

Drug-like inhibitor shows promise in preventing flu

15 hours ago

Cancer drug shows powerful anti-tumor activity in animal models of several different tumor types

16 hours ago

Study shows drug helps reprogram macrophage immune cells, suppress prostate and bladder tumor growth

18 hours ago

How immune cells recognize the abnormal metabolism of cancer cells

Hope for a cure for visceral leishmaniasis, an often fatal infectious disease

19 hours ago

Unlocking key answers on cell functioning for improved cancer treatments

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter