The student-supervisor relationshipin the phD/Doctorai process

Paul Gill , Philip Burnard

AbstractMany nurses in the United Kingdom are now undertaking PhDs;however, the process is both complex and time consuming. Researchhas shown that effective supervision can significantly influence thequality of the PhD and its eventual success or failure. Consequently,many common problems experienced durin g a PhD often relate todifficultie s in the supervisory process. PhD students and supervisorsoften have different expectations, needs and ways of thinkin g andwrorking . The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to provide anoverview of the key elements of research supervision. The paper isaimed at students, prospective students and supervisors involved inthe PhD process and explores the perspectives of a student and asupervisor and discusses what each can and should reasonably expectfrom supervision, how to identify and address potential supervisoryproblems and how to maintain an effective workin g relationship.

Key words: Education • phD • Student(s) • Supervisor(s)

7here has been a proliferation of nurses studying forPhDs in the United Kingdom (UK), particularly sincethe move of all schools of nursing into the highereducation sector in the 1990s. Indeed the establishment

of nursing as a fully-fledged university discipline depends,partly, on the achievement of more doctoral level attainmentQohnson and Burnard, 2002). The PhD undoubtedly offersmany potential benefits to the individual, in terms of careerdevelopment and prospects, and to the profession itself Theproduction, dissemination and use of good quality research,particularly at doctoral and post doctoral level, is essential forincreasing the body of nursing knowledge that could be usedto develop the profession and inform patient care (Gill, 2004).

Successñil PhD completion is a key performance indicatorfor universities and a significant criterion for the accreditationof their staff (Yam, 2005). However, successfuUy completinga PhD is complex, demanding and time consuming and iscommonly associated with a variety of potential problems, fartoo numerous to explore in one single paper. However one ofthe 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 Burnardis Professor of Nursing, Cardiff School of Nuning and MidwiferyStudies, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales

Accepted for publication: May 2008

and on time is related to the student-supervisor relationship.Many of the common problems experienced during a PhDare often related to difficulties in the supervisory relationship.

Research into the PhD process has indicated that effectivesupervision is crucial to doctoral students' successfulcompletion of their thesis (Hockey, 1995). The supervisor isof crucial importance to the PhD student as the main sourceof tuition, guidance, advice and support (Wright, 1991;Salmon, 1992; Sheehan, 1993; Holloway and Walker, 2000).Consequently, the experience and expertise of the supervisorcan greatly influence the eventual quality of the thesis and itssuccess or failure (Holloway and Walker, 2000).

The student-supervisor relationship is also complex andmultifaceted, with each person having particular expectationsof the other. The relationship also develops over several yearsand is, therefore, emotionally and intellectually demanding(Thompson et al, 2005). Good PhD supervision involvesproviding appropriate amounts of encouragement, advice,support, constructive and critical appraisal, pastoral careand encouraging and developing independent thinking andways of working (Sheehan, 1993). Furthermore, the needsand expectations of students and supervisors will often vary,therefore getting this balance right, in a way that satisfiesboth parties, is often difficult.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of thekey elements of research supervision, particularly to explorethe relationship between PhD students and their supervisors,focusing on what each can and should reasonably expectof the other, the roles of each party and how to avoid andaddress supervisory problems. The paper is written fromthe perspective of a student and a supervisor and may be ofinterest to all of those involved in the PhD process.

The student's perspectiveAnyone who has undertaken a PhD will probably acknowledgethe importance of good supervision. Students need supervisorswith whom they can work, who are seen as helpful andsupportive and whom they respect as knowledgeableprofessionals (HoUow ay and Walker, 2000). Consequently, it iswise for the student to establish as quickly as possible, if theirproposed supervisor is the best person for the job and if theyhave suitable experience and expertise and if they will be ableto work with them closely over several years.

To estabhsh this it may be wise for the student to speak tothe supervisors current or former students, and enquire ^vhattheir supervisory experience was like. It may also be helpfulto speak to the supervisor themselves. Questions to considermay include how many students the supervisor has successfully

668 British Journal of Nursing, 2008, Vol 17,No 10

FURTHER EDUCATION

supervised, and how many students are currendy under hisor her supervision? This may help to establish whether thesupervisor can dedicate enough time and effort to anotherproject. Those who are unsure about the allocated supervisormight try to negotiate someone more suitable, or should,perhaps, consider another academic institution or departmentand see how they compare (HoUoway and Walker, 2000).This may, of course, be problematic in practice, particularly ifthe supervisor is recognized as an expert in the subject areaand/or the methodology. However, it is important that, as faras possible, students satisfy themselves at the outset that thepotential supervisor is appropriate for them.

Meeting the supervisor's expectationsWhile PhD students may have expectations about theirsupervisor and of supervision, the converse is also true, andsupervisors will also have expectations of their students. Itis here that many problems can, and often do, arise becausestudents and supervisors may have contrasting expectationsof 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 inthe relationship (Sheehan, 1993;Johnson and Burnard, 2002;Thompson et al, 2005). Student needs will undoubtedlychange over time, therefore the ground rules of therelationship may need to be renegotiated periodically, but itis important that guidelines are set up early on so each knowswhat to do and what is expected (Delamont et al, 1997).

Although the organization of postgraduate studies is nowchanging in many universities, PhDs in the UK havetraditionally contained litde or no formal teaching or training(although many now provide compulsory research training) andoften lack any defined structure or direction (Hockey, 1995).The PhD also involves students having to structure their ownwork, probably for the first time in their hfe, coupled with aseemingly unlimited time horizon and a task of overwhelmingand unknown complexity (Delamont et al, 1997). This oftencomes as a surprise to the students and leaves many initiallyfeeling anxious and confused. However, supervisors can helpto address this by fully apprising students of what is expected,especially the time involved, without dampening enthusiasmand commitment (Thompson et al, 2005).There are also a lotof very good books available that explore the PhD process,including supervision, in considerable detail (Phillips andPugh, 1994; Holloway and Walker, 2000). Reading one ofthese books as early as possible is highly recommended, asit can help to prepare prospective students for the PhD. Thisarticle, however, is merely intended to provide readers with aconcise overview of the key aspects of PhD supervision.

Supervisory relationsLiking a supervisor is arguably not essential althoughit certainly helps. However, having a good relationshipwith them will see students through most difficulties. Apoor relationship is a recipe for disaster and often ends indemoralisation, depression and may even result in a failureto complete the PhD (Holloway and Walker, 2000). Likeall relationships, supervisory relations have to be worked at

and usually work best when they are open, honest, mutuallyrespectful and if each person acts in a coUegial manner.

Supervisory meetingsOne of the most important ways of maintaining progressand a good supervisory relationship is through regularsupervisory meetings. Such meetings provide importantopportunities to discuss progress, identify and addressproblems and explore and exchange ideas (Thompson et al,2005). If possible, it can help to agree the frequency, purposeand duration of meetings at the outset (Thompson et al,2005). In general, monthly supervisory meetings appearto be the norm over the course of the PhD. However, thefrequency and duration of meetings will probably varythroughout the PhD, according to student needs, and areusually more frequent at the beginning and at the end ofthe PhD. Where appropriate, supervision should also beflexible to meet the needs of students and supervisors. Forexample, the nature and frequency of meetings may vary ifthe student lives overseas, or if the student is working and/orcollecting data in another country.

It is wise, if possible, to agree in advance the likely agendafor each session. Students should always confirm meetingsbeforehand and let their supervisor know as soon as possibleif they cannot make a meeting. If any written work is to bediscussed, students should ensure that they send it to theirsupervisor in advance, giving them sufficient time to read andcomment on the work. To avoid any misunderstanding orconfusion it is important to leave supervision meetings with anagreed plan of action and also, if appropriate, a date for the nextmeeting. Keeping detailed, written records of all supervisionmeetings is also important, as these are useful research guidesand also serve as recourse if there are any disagreements(Holloway and Walker, 2000;Thompson et al, 2005).

Joint supervisionMany UK PhD students are now supervised by more thanone supervisor. Joint supervision has several potential benefits,in that students see different supervisory perspectives, as eachsupervisor usually has a different area of expertise (Thompsonet al, 2005). However, joint supervision can also createconfusion over the division of labour and too many opinions,especially if they are contradictory, can lead to confusion,pedantry and debilitating formality Qohnson, 2000; Johnsonand Burnard, 2002). It is essential for students who are beingjoindy supervised to meet regularly with their supervisoryteam and if any such problems do occur it is essential that theseare discussed with the supervisors as soon as possible.

The student's expectationsIt is normal for students too have expectations of theirsupervisor; 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

British Journ.il of Nursing, 2008. Vol 17. No 10 669

• Read and comment on written work within an acceptableperiod of time

• Where appropriate, ensure that students have adequatefacilities and resources for their work

• Ensure that their students receive the appropriate researchand, other relevant, training

• Assist in the production of progress reports and advise onprogress

• Be enthusiastic, committed, knowledgeable andapproachable

• Where possible, and if appropriate, help students withproblems, academic or personal, which may interfere withthe 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 anoriginal contribution to know ledge and must be the student sown work (Hockey, 1995; Burnard, 2001; Thompson et al,2005;Yam, 2005). Therefore, while students should expect tobe guided and supported by their supervisor, they should notexpect to be spoon-fed. PhD students will be encouragedand expected to work and think independently and shouldnot, therefore, expect their supervisors to make key decisionssuch as methodological choices, especially since they willeventually 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 disagreewith their supervisors advice or recommendations, theymust always tell them so. However, any counter argumentmust be logical and well informed.

Perhaps the most important thing to realise about supervisionis that all supervisors also have a multitude of other roles andresponsibilities, including the supervision of other students.Consequently, those undertaking a PhD should always try tomake reasonable demands on supervisors.

The supervisor's perspectiveThe supervisory relationship is complex. The supervisorhas to have either subject expertise (or expertise in thearea in which the student is studying) or methodologicalexpertise (Holloway and Walker, 2000). If the supervisorhas both, this is an advantage. On the other hand, thesupervisor must be open to new approaches to the subjectand new views of methods. There is nothing worse thanthe supervisor who wants acolytes rather than free-thinking and creative students.

Supervisory relationsBoth the supervisor and the student need to get on togetherand to be able to communicate openly and fi'eely (Hollo'wayand Walker, 2000). This is not to say that all supervisors andall students need to Hke each other, but it helps. This, verysubjective element, seems to produce better results, in terms ofboth completion rates and success during the viva. As notedabove, mutual respect lies at the heart of this relationship.

Joint supervisionWhile potentially problematic, dual supervision is now, arguably,essential. A single supervisor may leave or may have very strongviews on either the subject matter or the methodology used

(Johnson and Burnard, 2002). Joint supervision can help tolessen these effects and two points of view are usually betterthan one. Overall, the plus factors in having dual supervisionseem to outweigh the arguments against.

Supervision also needs to be project managed.Any supervisorneeds to set time limits on what is expected of the studentand at the same time, that supervisor needs to be aw are ofwhat the student can cope with (Sheehan, 1993; Delamontet al, 1997). Putting too much pressure on a student can becounterproductive and also, many students ask for time limitsto be set, claiming that they only work weU with deadlinesin place. The poorest form of supervision is the sort wheremeeting arrangements are left up to the student. It is perhapswise for the student and the supervisor to set a timeline,working backwards from completion to the present day, alongwhich both can clearly see a path along which to work.

Where appropriate, the good supervisory relationshipcan also lead to future research and writing opportunities.If the supervisor is a 'content' specialist, then he or she canpursue further, joint research in the field. The methodologyexpert can write co-authored papers on research methods.It is important to acknowledge that, towards the end of acourse of PhD study, the student has usually surpassed thesupervisor's expertise — both in terms of content and method(Phillips and Pugh, 1994).

The dialogue between supervisor and student should behonest and open (Thompson et al, 2005). Both can learnfrom the encounters. On the other hand, the student shouldalso be prepared to take direction and be advised by thesupervisor. Too student-centered a relationship may lead tosloppy scholarship and methodology.

Record-keeping and documentationGood records of the progress and development of the PhDtrail should be kept (Sheehan, 1993; Holloway and Walker,2000) .This is important as it enables development to be notedand clear aims for the future to be set. In the event of anappeal following an unsuccessful viva, good record-keepingmay provide evidence of appropriate supervision. It is notdifficult to write up a short note on the student's progressand his or her aims for the next meeting, immediately aftera meeting. An alternative method that some supervisors useis to ask the student to e-mail a set of notes of the meetingto the supervisor. This series of e-mails then serves as thepaper-trail for managing the PhD process.

The relationship between supervisor and student shouldinvolve a 'meeting of minds'.This is not a pretentious statementbut one that acknowledges that both parties are thinking andworking during the progress of the course. It should neversimply be the case that the supervisor 'teaches' the student:there should be argument, disagreement and critical challengethroughout the process (Phillips and Pugh, 1994). While thestudent remains the focus of the learning encounter, thesupervisor also learns a great deal along the way.

Identifyin g the needs of the studentThere are variations in the requirements of both studentsand supervisors. It remains the supervisor's task to identifyexactly what sort of relationship the student requires

670 British Journal of Nuning, 2008, Vol 17, No 10

FURTHER EDUCATION

(Delamont et al, 1997). For some students, weekly meetingsare required, for others, the time gap may be monthly. Forsome supervisors and students, it is important that thestudent emails written work for discussion at meetings,for others, the meeting is more of a tutorial. The art of asuccessful working relationship is to identify the individuals'needs (Holloway and Walker, 2000).

PhD supervision requires dedication and an aim. That aimis to ensure that, as far as possible, the student submits a thesisthat allows him or her to graduate. Occasionally, there arefailures and these are painful for both parties. Often, suchfailures can be put down to some sort of breakdown inthe relationship between student and supervisor or lack ofvigilance on the part of the supervisor Qohnson and Burnard,2002). The supervisor must retain both an interest in and adedication to the work of the student.

Tensions in the supervisory relationshipSupervisory difEculties can, and often do arise throughoutthe PhD process. Common problems include being underor over-supervised, having contrasting ways of thinking andworking and personality clashes (Cryer, 1996; Finn, 2005).Failure to effectively address supervisory difEculties can bepotentially damaging for supervisors and students and mayresult in an irrevocable breakdown in the working relationship.A PhD also involves a considerable commitment for most, ifnot aU, students and is often undertaken at a great personaland professional cost, emotionally and especially financially.Financial costs may include, course fees (usually several thousandpounds per year), loss of wages (particularly for qualified nurseson a full time PhD bursary, or those undertaking a part timedoctorate, supported by part-time work) and other costs suchas books, equipment, stationary, rent.

Consequendy, it is important that any problems are resolvedas quickly and as amicably as possible (Holloway and Walker,2000). Most supervisory problems stem from a failure to setout the expectations both parties have for the relationshipat the outset (Delamont et al, 1997). It is therefore prudentto negotiate expectations, roles, responsibihties and ways ofworking as early as possible in the supervisory relationship.However, the first step in attempting to resolve supervisorydifficulties, should, wherever possible, be for the supervisorand student to sit down and discuss the issues of concern ina diplomatic manner (Phillips and Pugh, 1994; Finn, 2005). Ifa satisfactory solution can be agreed it is advisable to give itsome time to establish if things have changed appropriately.If, however, after a suitable period of time, things have notchanged, then a change in supervisor(s) may be required. Inthe case of joint supervision, students and supervisors needto carefully consider if the entire supervisory team needs tochange. For continuity purposes, particularly if late in thePhD process, it may be advisable for one of the supervisorsto remain in place, providing this is appropriate and agreeableto all concerned.

Most universities have systems in place to deal withsuch matters and if a change in supervisor is required, it isadvisable to speak to the appropriate personnel — usuallythe departmental postgraduate tutor or head of research.However, such a decision should not be taken lightly and

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 requiredstudents and supervisors should be assured that it will be aspainless as possible and free from blame or recrimination.

ConciusionThis article has offered independent accounts of the PhDsupervision process from the perspective of a student and asupervisor. The main issues that emerge from this debate, andare supported by the literature, are that the supervisoryrelationship should be structured, the meetings regular -usually monthly at least - and recorded, and both student andsupervisor should feel able to engage in open, honest debateand learn from each other. The supervisory process shouldnever be a one-way system. Students and supervisors shouldalso be sensitive to each other's needs and ways of workingand should communicate these issues with each other as andwhen required. It is hoped that the points raised in this paperstimulate debate among both students and supervisors and arehelpful to aU of those embarking on the PhD trail. uM

Burnard P (2001) What is a PhD? Nurse EducToday 21(3): 159-60Cryer P (1996) The research student's guide to success. Open University Press,

BuckinghamshireDelamont S, Atkinson P, Parry O (1997) Supervising the PhD. Open Univenity

Press, BuckinghamshireFinn JA (2005) Getting a PhD. Routledge, LondonGill P (2004) Difficulties in developing a nursing research culture in the UK.

BrJNwB 13(14): 876-9Hockey J (1995) Getting too close: a problem and possible solution in social

science PhD supervision. BrJ Cuid Counc. 23(2): 199-210HoUoway 1, Walker J (2000) Getting a PhD in Health and Sodal Care. Blackwell

Science Ltd, OxfordJohnson M (2000) Must they have a PhD? Nurse EducToday 20(7): 511-2Johnson M, Burnard P (2002) The 'pear-shaped' doctoral thesis and how to

avoid it! Nurse EducToday 22(5): 355-7Phillips EM, Pugh DS (1994) How to get a PhD. 2nd edn. Open University

Press, BuckinghamshireSalmon P (1992) Achieving a PhD: Ten Students' Experiences. Trentham books,

StaffordshireSheehanJ (1993) Issues in the supervision of postgraduate research students in

nursing.J^iii/ Nurs 18(6): 880-5Thompson DR, Kirkman S, Watson R, Stevrart S (2005) Improving research

supervision in nursing. Nurse EducToday 25(4): 283—90WrightJ (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 candetermine success or faiiure.

I Many common probiems experienced during a PhD are often reiatedto difficuities in the supervisory reiationship.

I The key to successfui supervision is for both student and supervisor to discussand 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.

British Journal ofNursing, 2008, Vol 17, No 10 671