The student-supervisor relationship in the phD/Doctorai process

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.

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). Successil 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

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

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

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

FURTHER EDUCATION
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. 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

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

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.

(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 ^ e U 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

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 freethinking 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

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

FURTHER EDUCATION
(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. 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

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

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): 28390 WrightJ (1991) Left to their own devices. TlieT'imes Higher Education Supplement 996: 16-17 (December 6th) Yam BM (2005) Professional doctrate 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 intgrai 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.

British Journal ofNursing, 2008, Vol 17, No 10

671