Clarifying expectations

Overview and research

The student-supervisor relationship is one of the many factors in the success of postgraduate research education, and possibly the most crucial. Research suggests that one of the strongest predictors of postgraduate completion was having expectations met within the student/supervisor relationship.

Writers have described the supervisor/student relationship in a number of ways, but there is general agreement about the significance of the relationship which: "Stems from its duality; the co-existence of intimacy, care and personal commitment on the one hand, and commitment to specific academic goals on the other." (Rapport et al, 1989 reported in Hockey p. 363).

 Certainly many supervisors and candidates enter the supervisory relationship with a sense of trust that the whole experience will be a positive one and that each party will do what is expected (although rarely is 'what is expected' defined or discussed). Expectations can include the roles and responsibilities of both parties, expectations about the student's motives for undertaking postgraduate research and supervisors' reasons for undertaking supervision.

While the trust is maintained on both sides, in some cases as a result of good luck rather than good design, the relationship flourishes. The candidate and supervisor work together in an implicitly agreed environment. However, when one or both members of the relationship break that trust possibly unwittingly, assuming that the expectations were never made explicit in the first place then the relationship can quickly become fraught with difficulty. Generally, there are three options: a) struggle along as is; b) draw up a contract with very clear roles and expectations; or c) end the relationship by changing supervisors.

The candidate/supervisor relationship can be further complicated when a cross-cultural overlay exists.

The literature describes at least three forms of expectation which are relevant to the research education experience: the psycho-educational literature describes the self-fulfilling prophecy as a response to one's perceptions of the expectations of others; the socio-psychology literature addresses expectancy-value or valence theory; and the management literature discusses expectation of service.

An edited paper by Kiley (2006) is available for downloading.This paper provides more detail on expectation, particularly in cross-cultural settings

The above text was based on the following research:

Cooke, D. K., Sims, R.L., et al. (1995) The relationship between graduate student attitudes and attrition. The Journal of Psychology 129(6): 677-688.

Hockey, J. (1996) Contractual Solution to Problems in the Supervision of PhD Degrees in the UK. Studies in Higher Education,21(3), pp. 359-371.

Kiley, M. (2003) Conserver, Strategist or Transformer: The experiences of postgraduate student sojourners. Teaching in Higher Education 8(3): 345-356.

Santiago, A. & Einarson, M. (1998) Background characteristics as predictors of academic self-confidence and academic self-efficacy among graduate science and engineering students. Research in Higher Education 39(2): 163-198.

Ideas and tools

A few strategies that have proved to be useful in clarifying expectations early in candidature are:

Expectation scale

Each i.e. candidate and supervisor, completes the Expectation Scale and then discusses various positions on the scale with an eye to reaching a better understanding of the other's expectations. You can download the Expectation Scale (pdf version) or (Word version) which you can modify to suit your circumstances. One thing that works well is to leave a few of the cells empty and ask your candidate to include a few issues that are important to them.

Memorandum of Understanding

Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with each candidate which can be revised annually. The University of Otago has a sample which can be modified for different circumstances and disciplines.

Making sure potential candidates know about your views on supervision

Professor Robert Dale at Macquarie University, as for many years had on his web site a statement about his supervisory style and expectations on himself and candidates who decide to work with him. You can download a pdf copy of his statement here.

Given the different roles of supervisors, consider how you might:

• coach a candidate in clarifying expectations e.g. suggesting to a nervous or shy candidate that they talk to peers about expectations prior to meeting with you,
• use the clarification of expectations as a means of facilitating the research project e.g. discuss expectations as they might relate to the various stages of the project
• mentor a candidate at this stage e.g. suggest that the candidate might like to take responsibility for inviting an adviser to work through expectations with them.

You might  find it useful to use the Possible Issues to Discuss with Co-Supervisors sheet when setting up the panel.

Further useful discussion points are available on fIRST with A written understanding between supervisors and students about supervision expectations.

ANU information

ANU candidate views on the 'value-adding' aspects of a doctorate can also be a useful starting point when discussing expectations with candidates.

For College-specific information contact:

College of Engineering & Computer Science

College of Law

College of Arts and Social Sciences

College of Asia & the Pacific

College of Business & Economics

College of Medicine and Health Sciences

Alternatively, contact the College Associate Dean (HDR) for more general college information.