Research Supervision
Information and Tools
Print PDF

Student-supervisor relationships

Overview and research

Possibly the most commonly reported difficulty for candidates relate to communication difficulties with supervisors. Establishing sound and productive communication early in candidature, and regularly reviewing communication strategies, can help avoid some of the distressing situations that candidates and supervisors find themselves.

Research suggests that a productive relationship arises from a process of implicit and explicit negotiation based on agreed goals and values such as:

  • Mutual respect
  • Open communication
  • Understanding of the expectations of the other
  • Shared commitment to the goal of the completion of a successful research candidature

How to achieve this will vary depending on the candidate, the stage of candidature and the supervisor's preferred style of supervision. Helpful resources in Ideas and Tools are also available.

One way to strengthen both supervisory relationships and understanding of practice is to engage in ongoing dialogue with students and colleagues. Various people over time have provided conversational structures for such dialogue between students and supervisors, and for critical reflection on aspects of their interaction. They allow for structured feedback from supervisors and students on style, practice and expectations. They give a structure within which divergent/discordant views can be discussed safely, and common ground identified as the basis for negotiating successful patterns of interaction, and diagnosing difficulties. These processes can also improve the chances that students are learning positive skills of communication and negotiation.

Early meetings with candidates should aim to:

  • Establish the supervisory relationships and expectations
  • Focus on candidate's development of the research proposal
  • Identify the candidate's skills and skill gaps. Read more in the section 'Learning needs analysis'.

The above text was based on the following research:

Cullen, D., Pearson, M., Saha, L.J., Spear, R.H. (1994) Establishing effective PhD Supervision. Canberra: AGPS, p. 74.

Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. (2005). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. London: Routledge.

Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Available from the CEDAM library)

Ideas and tools

Building productive working relationships.

The following resources might help in the development of relationships and clarification of expectations early in candidature

Clarifying expectations (Download pdf copy or Word copy)

Getting the balance right: Framework for looking at how you related with your students

Practitioner Tip: Supervision as a two-way process

Dr Krisztina Valter-Kocsi in the Research School of Biological Sciences outlined the following strategy for working with her research candidates. She prepared this when she was enrolled in the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education course, EDUC8004, Research Supervision.

"I like to establish early in the candidature, that it is a 2-way process. Sure, at the beginning, the teaching is more likely to be in a supervisor-to-student direction but as time goes it should become more bi-directional. To start this process, I usually ask my students to research and teach me new skills. It could be a new method in our research, new computer software, or a new way to analyse results.

During our discussion about literature usually we look at techniques reported in papers and assess them for their value in our work. If there is a method we consider as possibly useful, I ask the student to look into it and report back to me. If we decide to go ahead and implement/use it in our lab, I ask the student to work out the details and once he/she is satisfied that it works, teach me how to use it. I also encourage the student to let me know if there are problems during the set-up time, so that we can work out how to tackle them together.

I like this activity because it gives the students more confidence, they learn how to introduce methods in the lab (an important skill for their future), gain experience teaching others (usually the teaching doesn't stop at coaching me, but if the method turns out to be really good, it is most likely be widely used in our lab, so that the student will teach others in our group as well).

This works with all students, since they are eager to learn more and gives them a sense of achievement. During discussions and then when the student teaches me, valuable communication skills are gained in parallel to the sense of accomplishment gives the student more confidence that in turn helps a more 2-way communication not only in relation to this project, but also in the future. It encourages students to explore new techniques and come up with suggestions in the future.

The disadvantage of this strategy is, that we could pick a method or software that is not as useful as previously thought, and we might invest money and time to no avail. This can be disappointing to the student, and although it is a valuable experience (since it is the nature of research that sometimes we are led to unproductive routes), we need to avoid them feeling being failed. I usually discuss this possibility with the student at the beginning and explain how uncertainty is part of research. Being involved in trouble shooting also helps to show student that is not his/her fault if it does not work but simply a fact of science."

Student views on effective communication

University of Otago (NZ) student perspectives see existing Establishing a relationship with supervisors (University of Queensland) see existing

ANU information

The ANU Code of Practice on Supervision in Higher Degrees by Research provides advice on communicating with candidates

A framework for reviewing how you relate to your students. This framework is based on interviews with experienced supervisors at the ANU.

The analysis revealed a model of the supervisory process which was common to all disciplines. The following are the basic elements of that model:

  • Negotiating/guiding the move from dependence to independence which involves different degrees of direction at different stages - that is, it can become very directional in the final stage to force a student to complete, or if a student is floundering and losing confidence the supervisor may break the task down for them, and there is an effort to get them to write up their research to full advantage - so that the student move to independence is coupled with a bi-model pattern of time allocation from the supervisor;
  • Varying the supervisory approach to suit the individual student's needs and personality, disciplinary differences and so on even though some interviewees expressed a preference for a particular approach and preferred students who suited that (in one such instance a supervisor preferred students who did not want timetables, lots of regular contact, etc; these students were identified as 'better' students);
  • Recognising that a key to the process is the formulation of the problem/question because it is that which ensures focus and engagement. The tension comes from providing enough direction to stop students going down paths which are non-productive (which is a problematic judgment in itself), without taking over. In other words the student has to 'own' their thesis. There was a suggestion that where a student completed a thesis but did not 'own it' the supervisor would be disappointed with that as an outcome.

 

For College-specific information contact:

Currently colleges are compiling information about supervisor-student relationships at ANU. In the meantime, contact the College Associate Dean (HDR) for more general college information.