See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5293713

The student–supervisor relationship in the PhD/Doctoral process

Article  in  British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing) · May 2008

DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2008.17.10.29484 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

52 2,260

2 authors, including:

Paul Gill
Cardiff University
25 PUBLICATIONS   2,523 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Gill on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The student-supervisor relationship
in the phD/Doctorai process
Abstract
Many nurses in the United Kingdom are now undertaking PhDs;
however, the process is both complex and time consuming. Research
has shown that effective supervision can significantly influence the
quality of the PhD and its eventual success or failure. Consequently,
many common problems experienced during a PhD often relate to
difficulties in the supervisory process. PhD students and supervisors
often have different expectations, needs and ways of thinking and
wrorking. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to provide an
overview of the key elements of research supervision. The paper is
aimed at students, prospective students and supervisors involved in
the PhD process and explores the perspectives of a student and a
supervisor and discusses what each can and should reasonably expect
from supervision, how to identify and address potential supervisory
problems and how to maintain an effective working relationship.
Key words: Education • phD • Student(s) • Supervisor(s)
7here has been a proliferation of nurses studying for
PhDs in the United Kingdom (UK), particularly since
the move of all schools of nursing into the higher
education sector in the 1990s. Indeed the establishment
of nursing as a fully-fledged university discipline depends,
partly, on the achievement of more doctoral level attainment
Qohnson and Burnard, 2002). The PhD undoubtedly offers
many potential benefits to the individual, in terms of career
development and prospects, and to the profession itself The
production, dissemination and use of good quality research,
particularly at doctoral and post doctoral level, is essential for
increasing the body of nursing knowledge that could be used
to develop the profession and inform patient care (Gill, 2004).
Successñil PhD completion is a key performance indicator
for universities and a significant criterion for the accreditation
of their staff (Yam, 2005). However, successfuUy completing
a PhD is complex, demanding and time consuming and is
commonly associated with a variety of potential problems, far
too numerous to explore in one single paper. However one of
the most important aspects of completing a PhD successfully
Paul Gill is Senior Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Health,
Sport and Science, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd; Philip Burnard
is Professor of Nursing, Cardiff School of Nuning and Midwifery
Studies, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales
Accepted for publication: May 2008
668
Paul Gill, Philip Burnard
and on time is related to the student-supervisor relationship.
Many of the common problems experienced during a PhD
are often related to difficulties in the supervisory relationship.
Research into the PhD process has indicated that effective
supervision is crucial to doctoral students' successful
completion of their thesis (Hockey, 1995). The supervisor is
of crucial importance to the PhD student as the main source
of tuition, guidance, advice and support (Wright, 1991;
Salmon, 1992; Sheehan, 1993; Holloway and Walker, 2000).
Consequently, the experience and expertise of the supervisor
can greatly influence the eventual quality of the thesis and its
success or failure (Holloway and Walker, 2000).
The student-supervisor relationship is also complex and
multifaceted, with each person having particular expectations
of the other. The relationship also develops over several years
and is, therefore, emotionally and intellectually demanding
(Thompson et al, 2005). Good PhD supervision involves
providing appropriate amounts of encouragement, advice,
support, constructive and critical appraisal, pastoral care
and encouraging and developing independent thinking and
ways of working (Sheehan, 1993). Furthermore, the needs
and expectations of students and supervisors will often vary,
therefore getting this balance right, in a way that satisfies
both parties, is often difficult.
The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the
key elements of research supervision, particularly to explore
the relationship between PhD students and their supervisors,
focusing on what each can and should reasonably expect
of the other, the roles of each party and how to avoid and
address supervisory problems. The paper is written from
the perspective of a student and a supervisor and may be of
interest to all of those involved in the PhD process.
The student's perspective
Anyone who has undertaken a PhD will probably acknowledge
the importance of good supervision. Students need supervisors
with whom they can work, who are seen as helpful and
supportive and whom they respect as knowledgeable
professionals (HoUow^ay and Walker, 2000). Consequently, it is
wise for the student to establish as quickly as possible, if their
proposed supervisor is the best person for the job and if they
have suitable experience and expertise and if they will be able
to work with them closely over several years.
To estabhsh this it may be wise for the student to speak to
the supervisors current or former students, and enquire ^vhat
their supervisory experience was like. It may also be helpful
to speak to the supervisor themselves. Questions to consider
may include how many students the supervisor has successfully
British Journal of Nursing, 2008, Vol 17,No 10

supervised, and how many students are currendy under his
or her supervision? This may help to establish whether the
supervisor can dedicate enough time and effort to another
project. Those who are unsure about the allocated supervisor
might try to negotiate someone more suitable, or should,
perhaps, consider another academic institution or department
and see how they compare (HoUoway and Walker, 2000).
This may, of course, be problematic in practice, particularly if
the supervisor is recognized as an expert in the subject area
and/or the methodology. However, it is important that, as far
as possible, students satisfy themselves at the outset that the
potential supervisor is appropriate for them.
Meeting the supervisor's expectations
While PhD students may have expectations about their
supervisor and of supervision, the converse is also true, and
supervisors will also have expectations of their students. It
is here that many problems can, and often do, arise because
students and supervisors may have contrasting expectations
of each other and different ways of working. However,
supervisory problems can be avoided, or at least minimized,
if students and supervisors discuss and agree their needs,
expectations, responsibilities and ways of working, early in
the relationship (Sheehan, 1993;Johnson and Burnard, 2002;
Thompson et al, 2005). Student needs will undoubtedly
change over time, therefore the ground rules of the
relationship may need to be renegotiated periodically, but it
is important that guidelines are set up early on so each knows
what to do and what is expected (Delamont et al, 1997).
Although the organization of postgraduate studies is now
changing in many universities, PhDs in the UK have
traditionally contained litde or no formal teaching or training
(although many now provide compulsory research training) and
often lack any defined structure or direction (Hockey, 1995).
The PhD also involves students having to structure their own
work, probably for the first time in their hfe, coupled with a
seemingly unlimited time horizon and a task of overwhelming
and unknown complexity (Delamont et al, 1997). This often
comes as a surprise to the students and leaves many initially
feeling anxious and confused. However, supervisors can help
to address this by fully apprising students of what is expected,
especially the time involved, without dampening enthusiasm
and commitment (Thompson et al, 2005).There are also a lot
of very good books available that explore the PhD process,
including supervision, in considerable detail (Phillips and
Pugh, 1994; Holloway and Walker, 2000). Reading one of
these books as early as possible is highly recommended, as
it can help to prepare prospective students for the PhD. This
article, however, is merely intended to provide readers with a
concise overview of the key aspects of PhD supervision.
Supervisory relations
Liking a supervisor is arguably not essential although
it certainly helps. However, having a good relationship
with them will see students through most difficulties. A
poor relationship is a recipe for disaster and often ends in
demoralisation, depression and may even result in a failure
to complete the PhD (Holloway and Walker, 2000). Like
all relationships, supervisory relations have to be worked at
British Journ.il of Nursing, 2008. Vol 17. No 10
FURTHER EDUCATION
and usually work best when they are open, honest, mutually
respectful and if each person acts in a coUegial manner.
Supervisory meetings
One of the most important ways of maintaining progress
and a good supervisory relationship is through regular
supervisory meetings. Such meetings provide important
opportunities to discuss progress, identify and address
problems and explore and exchange ideas (Thompson et al,
2005). If possible, it can help to agree the frequency, purpose
and duration of meetings at the outset (Thompson et al,
2005). In general, monthly supervisory meetings appear
to be the norm over the course of the PhD. However, the
frequency and duration of meetings will probably vary
throughout the PhD, according to student needs, and are
usually more frequent at the beginning and at the end of
the PhD. Where appropriate, supervision should also be
flexible to meet the needs of students and supervisors. For
example, the nature and frequency of meetings may vary if
the student lives overseas, or if the student is working and/or
collecting data in another country.
It is wise, if possible, to agree in advance the likely agenda
for each session. Students should always confirm meetings
beforehand and let their supervisor know as soon as possible
if they cannot make a meeting. If any written work is to be
discussed, students should ensure that they send it to their
supervisor in advance, giving them sufficient time to read and
comment on the work. To avoid any misunderstanding or
confusion it is important to leave supervision meetings with an
agreed plan of action and also, if appropriate, a date for the next
meeting. Keeping detailed, written records of all supervision
meetings is also important, as these are useful research guides
and also serve as recourse if there are any disagreements
(Holloway and Walker, 2000;Thompson et al, 2005).
Joint supervision
Many UK PhD students are now supervised by more than
one supervisor. Joint supervision has several potential benefits,
in that students see different supervisory perspectives, as each
supervisor usually has a different area of expertise (Thompson
et al, 2005). However, joint supervision can also create
confusion over the division of labour and too many opinions,
especially if they are contradictory, can lead to confusion,
pedantry and debilitating formality Qohnson, 2000; Johnson
and Burnard, 2002). It is essential for students who are being
joindy supervised to meet regularly with their supervisory
team and if any such problems do occur it is essential that these
are discussed with the supervisors as soon as possible.
The student's expectations
It is normal for students too have expectations of their
supervisor; however, these expectations should reasonable.
Students should expect supervisors to (Wright, 1991;
Sheehan, 1993; Hockey, 1995; HoUoway and Walker, 2000;
Thompson et al, 2005):
• Support, encourage, guide and advise
• Offer criticism, where appropriate, in a constructive and
encouraging manner
• Be accessible and available at appropriate times
669
 • Read and comment on written work within an acceptable
period of time
• Where appropriate, ensure that students have adequate
facilities and resources for their work
• Ensure that their students receive the appropriate research
and, other relevant, training
• Assist in the production of progress reports and advise on
progress
• Be enthusiastic, committed, knowledgeable and
approachable
• Where possible, and if appropriate, help students with
problems, academic or personal, which may interfere with
the smooth running of the research.
However, it is important to realise that the hallmark of a
PhD is originality and the thesis must, therefore, make an
original contribution to know^ledge and must be the student s
own work (Hockey, 1995; Burnard, 2001; Thompson et al,
2005;Yam, 2005). Therefore, while students should expect to
be guided and supported by their supervisor, they should not
expect to be spoon-fed. PhD students will be encouraged
and expected to work and think independently and should
not, therefore, expect their supervisors to make key decisions
such as methodological choices, especially since they will
eventually have to defend their thesis at the PhD viva.
Doctoral students will also eventually be acknowledged as the
'expert' of their research, so if they are unhappy or disagree
with their supervisors advice or recommendations, they
must always tell them so. However, any counter argument
must be logical and well informed.
Perhaps the most important thing to realise about supervision
is that all supervisors also have a multitude of other roles and
responsibilities, including the supervision of other students.
Consequently, those undertaking a PhD should always try to
make reasonable demands on supervisors.
The supervisor's perspective
The supervisory relationship is complex. The supervisor
has to have either subject expertise (or expertise in the
area in which the student is studying) or methodological
expertise (Holloway and Walker, 2000). If the supervisor
has both, this is an advantage. On the other hand, the
supervisor must be open to new approaches to the subject
and new views of methods. There is nothing worse than
the supervisor who wants acolytes rather than free-
thinking and creative students.
Supervisory relations
Both the supervisor and the student need to get on together
and to be able to communicate openly and fi'eely (Hollo'way
and Walker, 2000). This is not to say that all supervisors and
all students need to Hke each other, but it helps. This, very
subjective element, seems to produce better results, in terms of
both completion rates and success during the viva. As noted
above, mutual respect lies at the heart of this relationship.
Joint supervision
While potentially problematic, dual supervision is now, arguably,
essential. A single supervisor may leave or may have very strong
views on either the subject matter or the methodology used
670
(Johnson and Burnard, 2002). Joint supervision can help to
lessen these effects and two points of view are usually better
than one. Overall, the plus factors in having dual supervision
seem to outweigh the arguments against.
Supervision also needs to be project managed.Any supervisor
needs to set time limits on what is expected of the student
and at the same time, that supervisor needs to be aw^are of
what the student can cope with (Sheehan, 1993; Delamont
et al, 1997). Putting too much pressure on a student can be
counterproductive and also, many students ask for time limits
to be set, claiming that they only work w^eU with deadlines
in place. The poorest form of supervision is the sort where
meeting arrangements are left up to the student. It is perhaps
wise for the student and the supervisor to set a timeline,
working backwards from completion to the present day, along
which both can clearly see a path along which to work.
Where appropriate, the good supervisory relationship
can also lead to future research and writing opportunities.
If the supervisor is a 'content' specialist, then he or she can
pursue further, joint research in the field. The methodology
expert can write co-authored papers on research methods.
It is important to acknowledge that, towards the end of a
course of PhD study, the student has usually surpassed the
supervisor's expertise — both in terms of content and method
(Phillips and Pugh, 1994).
The dialogue between supervisor and student should be
honest and open (Thompson et al, 2005). Both can learn
from the encounters. On the other hand, the student should
also be prepared to take direction and be advised by the
supervisor. Too student-centered a relationship may lead to
sloppy scholarship and methodology.
Record-keeping and documentation
Good records of the progress and development of the PhD
trail should be kept (Sheehan, 1993; Holloway and Walker,
2000) .This is important as it enables development to be noted
and clear aims for the future to be set. In the event of an
appeal following an unsuccessful viva, good record-keeping
may provide evidence of appropriate supervision. It is not
difficult to write up a short note on the student's progress
and his or her aims for the next meeting, immediately after
a meeting. An alternative method that some supervisors use
is to ask the student to e-mail a set of notes of the meeting
to the supervisor. This series of e-mails then serves as the
paper-trail for managing the PhD process.
The relationship between supervisor and student should
involve a 'meeting of minds'.This is not a pretentious statement
but one that acknowledges that both parties are thinking and
working during the progress of the course. It should never
simply be the case that the supervisor 'teaches' the student:
there should be argument, disagreement and critical challenge
throughout the process (Phillips and Pugh, 1994). While the
student remains the focus of the learning encounter, the
supervisor also learns a great deal along the way.
Identifying the needs of the student
There are variations in the requirements of both students
and supervisors. It remains the supervisor's task to identify
exactly what sort of relationship the student requires
British Journal of Nuning, 2008, Vol 17, No 10

(Delamont et al, 1997). For some students, weekly meetings
are required, for others, the time gap may be monthly. For
some supervisors and students, it is important that the
student emails written work for discussion at meetings,
for others, the meeting is more of a tutorial. The art of a
successful working relationship is to identify the individuals'
needs (Holloway and Walker, 2000).
PhD supervision requires dedication and an aim. That aim
is to ensure that, as far as possible, the student submits a thesis
that allows him or her to graduate. Occasionally, there are
failures and these are painful for both parties. Often, such
failures can be put down to some sort of breakdown in
the relationship between student and supervisor or lack of
vigilance on the part of the supervisor Qohnson and Burnard,
2002). The supervisor must retain both an interest in and a
dedication to the work of the student.
Tensions in the supervisory relationship
Supervisory difEculties can, and often do arise throughout
the PhD process. Common problems include being under
or over-supervised, having contrasting ways of thinking and
working and personality clashes (Cryer, 1996; Finn, 2005).
Failure to effectively address supervisory difEculties can be
potentially damaging for supervisors and students and may
result in an irrevocable breakdown in the working relationship.
A PhD also involves a considerable commitment for most, if
not aU, students and is often undertaken at a great personal
and professional cost, emotionally and especially financially.
Financial costs may include, course fees (usually several thousand
pounds per year), loss of wages (particularly for qualified nurses
on a full time PhD bursary, or those undertaking a part time
doctorate, supported by part-time work) and other costs such
as books, equipment, stationary, rent.
Consequendy, it is important that any problems are resolved
as quickly and as amicably as possible (Holloway and Walker,
2000). Most supervisory problems stem from a failure to set
out the expectations both parties have for the relationship
at the outset (Delamont et al, 1997). It is therefore prudent
to negotiate expectations, roles, responsibihties and ways of
working as early as possible in the supervisory relationship.
However, the first step in attempting to resolve supervisory
difficulties, should, wherever possible, be for the supervisor
and student to sit down and discuss the issues of concern in
a diplomatic manner (Phillips and Pugh, 1994; Finn, 2005). If
a satisfactory solution can be agreed it is advisable to give it
some time to establish if things have changed appropriately.
If, however, after a suitable period of time, things have not
changed, then a change in supervisor(s) may be required. In
the case of joint supervision, students and supervisors need
to carefully consider if the entire supervisory team needs to
change. For continuity purposes, particularly if late in the
PhD process, it may be advisable for one of the supervisors
to remain in place, providing this is appropriate and agreeable
to all concerned.
Most universities have systems in place to deal with
such matters and if a change in supervisor is required, it is
advisable to speak to the appropriate personnel — usually
the departmental postgraduate tutor or head of research.
However, such a decision should not be taken lightly and
British Journal ofNursing, 2008, Vol 17, No 10
FURTHER EDUCATION
should only be considered in exceptional circumstances,
particularly if at a late stage in the PhD process (Finn, 2005;
Thompson et al, 2005). However, if such a change is required
students and supervisors should be assured that it will be as
painless as possible and free from blame or recrimination.
Conciusion
This article has offered independent accounts of the PhD
supervision process from the perspective of a student and a
supervisor. The main issues that emerge from this debate, and
are supported by the literature, are that the supervisory
relationship should be structured, the meetings regular -
usually monthly at least - and recorded, and both student and
supervisor should feel able to engage in open, honest debate
and learn from each other. The supervisory process should
never be a one-way system. Students and supervisors should
also be sensitive to each other's needs and ways of working
and should communicate these issues with each other as and
when required. It is hoped that the points raised in this paper
stimulate debate among both students and supervisors and are
helpful to aU of those embarking on the PhD trail. uM
Burnard P (2001) What is a PhD? Nurse EducToday 21(3): 159-60
Cryer P (1996) The research student's guide to success. Open University Press,
Buckinghamshire
Delamont S, Atkinson P, Parry O (1997) Supervising the PhD. Open Univenity
Press, Buckinghamshire
Finn JA (2005) Getting a PhD. Routledge, London
Gill P (2004) Difficulties in developing a nursing research culture in the UK.
BrJNwB 13(14): 876-9
Hockey J (1995) Getting too close: a problem and possible solution in social
science PhD supervision. BrJ Cuid Counc. 23(2): 199-210
HoUoway 1, Walker J (2000) Getting a PhD in Health and Sodal Care. Blackwell
Science Ltd, Oxford
Johnson M (2000) Must they have a PhD? Nurse EducToday 20(7): 511-2
Johnson M, Burnard P (2002) The 'pear-shaped' doctoral thesis and how to
avoid it! Nurse EducToday 22(5): 355-7
Phillips EM, Pugh DS (1994) How to get a PhD. 2nd edn. Open University
Press, Buckinghamshire
Salmon P (1992) Achieving a PhD: Ten Students' Experiences. Trentham books,
Staffordshire
SheehanJ (1993) Issues in the supervision of postgraduate research students in
nursing.J^iii/ Nurs 18(6): 880-5
Thompson D R , Kirkman S, Watson R, Stevrart S (2005) Improving research
supervision in nursing. Nurse EducToday 25(4): 283—90
WrightJ (1991) Left to their own devices. TlieT'imes Higher Education Supplement
996: 16-17 (December 6th)
Yam BM (2005) Professional doctórate and professional nursing practice. Nurse
EducToday 25{7): 564-72
KEY POINTS
I Many nurses in the United Kingdom are now undertaking PhDs.
I Research supervision is an intégrai component of the PhD process and can
determine success or faiiure.
I Many common probiems experienced during a PhD are often reiated
to difficuities in the supervisory reiationship.
I The key to successfui supervision is for both student and supervisor to discuss
and agree needs, expectations and ways of working as soon as possibie.
I Any probiems in the supervisory relationship should, wherever possible,
be addressed as quickiy ¿is possibie, in an open and honest manner.
671
View publication stats