introduction to phd supervision

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
PLoS Comput Biol
v.17(9); 2021 Sep

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Catherine Bannon

J. scott p. mccain, introduction.

The PhD beckons. You thought long and hard about why you want to do it, you understand the sacrifices and commitments it entails, and you have decided that it is the right thing for you. Congratulations! Undertaking a doctoral degree can be an extremely rewarding experience, greatly enhancing your personal, intellectual, and professional development. If you are still on the fence about whether or not you want to pursue a PhD, see [ 1 , 2 ] and others to help you decide.

As a PhD student in the making, you will have many important decisions to consider. Several of them will depend on your chosen discipline and research topic, the institution you want to attend, and even the country where you will undertake your degree. However, one of the earliest and most critical decisions you will need to make transcends most other decisions: choosing your PhD thesis supervisor. Your PhD supervisor will strongly influence the success and quality of your degree as well as your general well-being throughout the program. It is therefore vital to choose the right supervisor for you. A wrong choice or poor fit can be disastrous on both a personal and professional levels—something you obviously want to avoid. Unfortunately, however, most PhD students go through the process of choosing a supervisor only once and thus do not get the opportunity to learn from previous experiences. Additionally, many prospective PhD students do not have access to resources and proper guidance to rely on when making important academic decisions such as those involved in choosing a PhD supervisor.

In this short guide, we—a group of PhD students with varied backgrounds, research disciplines, and academic journeys—share our collective experiences with choosing our own PhD supervisors. We provide tips and advice to help prospective students in various disciplines, including computational biology, in their quest to find a suitable PhD supervisor. Despite procedural differences across countries, institutions, and programs, the following rules and discussions should remain helpful for guiding one’s approach to selecting their future PhD supervisor. These guidelines mostly address how to evaluate a potential PhD supervisor and do not include details on how you might find a supervisor. In brief, you can find a supervisor anywhere: seminars, a class you were taught, internet search of interesting research topics, departmental pages, etc. After reading about a group’s research and convincing yourself it seems interesting, get in touch! Make sure to craft an e-mail carefully, demonstrating you have thought about their research and what you might do in their group. After finding one or several supervisors of interest, we hope that the rules bellow will help you choose the right supervisor for you.

Rule 1: Align research interests

You need to make sure that a prospective supervisor studies, or at the very least, has an interest in what you want to study. A good starting point would be to browse their personal and research group websites (though those are often outdated), their publication profile, and their students’ theses, if possible. Keep in mind that the publication process can be slow, so recent publications may not necessarily reflect current research in that group. Pay special attention to publications where the supervisor is senior author—in life sciences, their name would typically be last. This would help you construct a mental map of where the group interests are going, in addition to where they have been.

Be proactive about pursuing your research interests, but also flexible: Your dream research topic might not currently be conducted in a particular group, but perhaps the supervisor is open to exploring new ideas and research avenues with you. Check that the group or institution of interest has the facilities and resources appropriate for your research, and/or be prepared to establish collaborations to access those resources elsewhere. Make sure you like not only the research topic, but also the “grunt work” it requires, as a topic you find interesting may not be suitable for you in terms of day-to-day work. You can look at the “Methods” sections of published papers to get a sense for what this is like—for example, if you do not like resolving cryptic error messages, programming is probably not for you, and you might want to consider a wet lab–based project. Lastly, any research can be made interesting, and interests change. Perhaps your favorite topic today is difficult to work with now, and you might cut your teeth on a different project.

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

Discussing your plans with experienced and trustworthy people is a great way to learn more about the reputation of potential supervisors, their research group dynamics, and exciting projects in your field of interest. Your current supervisor, if you have one, could be aware of position openings that are compatible with your interests and time frame and is likely to know talented supervisors with good reputations in their fields. Professors you admire, reliable student advisors, and colleagues might also know your prospective supervisor on various professional or personal levels and could have additional insight about working with them. Listen carefully to what these trusted sources have to say, as they can provide a wealth of insider information (e.g., personality, reputation, interpersonal relationships, and supervisory styles) that might not be readily accessible to you.

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

A considerable portion of PhD students feel that their program does not meet original expectations [ 3 ]. To avoid being part of this group, we stress the importance of aligning your expectations with the supervisor’s expectations before joining a research group or PhD program. Also, remember that one person’s dream supervisor can be another’s worst nightmare and vice versa—it is about a good fit for you. Identifying what a “good fit” looks like requires a serious self-appraisal of your goals (see Rule 1 ), working style (see Rule 5 ), and what you expect in a mentor (see Rule 4 ). One way to conduct this self-appraisal is to work in a research lab to get experiences similar to a PhD student (if this is possible).

Money!—Many people have been conditioned to avoid the subject of finances at all costs, but setting financial expectations early is crucial for maintaining your well-being inside and outside the lab. Inside the lab, funding will provide chemicals and equipment required for you to do cool research. It is also important to know if there will be sufficient funding for your potential projects to be completed. Outside the lab, you deserve to get paid a reasonable, livable stipend. What is the minimum required take-home stipend, or does that even exist at the institution you are interested in? Are there hard cutoffs for funding once your time runs out, or does the institution have support for students who take longer than anticipated? If the supervisor supplies the funding, do they end up cutting off students when funds run low, or do they have contingency plans? ( Fig 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1009330.g001.jpg

Professional development opportunities—A key aspect of graduate school training is professional development. In some research groups, it is normal for PhD students to mentor undergraduate students or take a semester to work in industry to get more diverse experiences. Other research groups have clear links with government entities, which is helpful for going into policy or government-based research. These opportunities (and others) are critical for your career and next steps. What are the career development opportunities and expectations of a potential supervisor? Is a potential supervisor happy to send students to workshops to learn new skills? Are they supportive of public outreach activities? If you are looking at joining a newer group, these sorts of questions will have to be part of the larger set of conversations about expectations. Ask: “What sort of professional development opportunities are there at the institution?”

Publications—Some PhD programs have minimum requirements for finishing a thesis (i.e., you must publish a certain number of papers prior to defending), while other programs leave it up to the student and supervisor to decide on this. A simple and important topic to discuss is: How many publications are expected from your PhD and when will you publish them? If you are keen to publish in high-impact journals, does your prospective supervisor share that aim? (Although question why you are so keen to do so, see the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment ( www.sfdora.org ) to learn about the pitfalls of journal impact factor.)

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

Sooner or later, you will get to meet and interview with a prospective PhD supervisor. This should go both ways: Interview them just as much as they are interviewing you. Prepare questions and pay close attention to how they respond. For example, ask them about their “lab culture,” research interests (especially for the future/long term), and what they are looking for in a graduate student. Do you feel like you need to “put on an act” to go along with the supervisor (beyond just the standard interview mode)? Represent yourself, and not the person you think they are looking for. All of us will have some interviews go badly. Remember that discovering a poor fit during the interview has way fewer consequences than the incompatibility that could arise once you have committed to a position.

To come up with good questions for the prospective supervisor, first ask yourself questions. What are you looking for in a mentor? People differ in their optimal levels of supervision, and there is nothing wrong with wanting more or less than your peers. How much career guidance do you expect and does the potential supervisor respect your interests, particularly if your long-term goals do not include academia? What kind of student might not thrive in this research group?

Treat the PhD position like a partnership: What do you seek to get out of it? Keep in mind that a large portion of research is conducted by PhD students [ 4 ], so you are also an asset. Your supervisor will provide guidance, but the PhD is your work. Make sure you and your mentor are on the same page before committing to what is fundamentally a professional contract akin to an apprenticeship (see “ Rule 3 ”).

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

Sharing interests with a supervisor does not necessarily guarantee you would work well together, and just because you enjoyed a course by a certain professor does not mean they are the right PhD supervisor for you. Make sure your expectations for work and work–life approaches are compatible. Do you thrive on structure, or do you need freedom to proceed at your own pace? Do they expect you to be in the lab from 6:00 AM to midnight on a regular basis (red flag!)? Are they comfortable with you working from home when you can? Are they around the lab enough for it to work for you? Are they supportive of alternative work hours if you have other obligations (e.g., childcare, other employment, extracurriculars)? How is the group itself organized? Is there a lab manager or are the logistics shared (fairly?) between the group members? Discuss this before you commit!

Two key attributes of a research group are the supervisor’s career stage and number of people in the group. A supervisor in a later career stage may have more established research connections and protocols. An earlier career stage supervisor comes with more opportunities to shape the research direction of the lab, but less access to academic political power and less certainty in what their supervision style will be (even to themselves). Joining new research groups provides a great opportunity to learn how to build a lab if you are considering that career path but may take away time and energy from your thesis project. Similarly, be aware of pros and cons of different lab sizes. While big labs provide more opportunity for collaborations and learning from fellow lab members, their supervisors generally have less time available for each trainee. Smaller labs tend to have better access to the supervisor but may be more isolating [ 5 , 6 ]. Also note that large research groups tend to be better for developing extant research topics further, while small groups can conduct more disruptive research [ 7 ].

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

Meeting with current students is one of the most important steps prior to joining a lab. Current students will give you the most direct and complete sense of what working with a certain supervisor is actually like. They can also give you a valuable sense of departmental culture and nonacademic life. You could also ask to meet with other students in the department to get a broader sense of the latter. However, if current students are not happy with their current supervisor, they are unlikely to tell you directly. Try to ask specific questions: “How often do you meet with your supervisor?”, “What are the typical turnaround times for a paper draft?”, “How would you describe the lab culture?”, “How does your supervisor react to mistakes or unexpected results?”, “How does your supervisor react to interruptions to research from, e.g., personal life?”, and yes, even “What would you say is the biggest weakness of your supervisor?”

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

While not always possible, meeting with past students can be very informative. Past students give you information on career outcomes (i.e., what are they doing now?) and can provide insight into what the lab was like when they were in it. Previous students will provide a unique perspective because they have gone through the entire process, from start to finish—and, in some cases, no longer feel obligated to speak well of their now former supervisor. It can also be helpful to look at previous students’ experiences by reading the acknowledgement section in their theses.

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

Your PhD supervisor is only one—albeit large—piece of your PhD puzzle. It is therefore essential to consider your PhD experience as whole when deciding on a supervisor. One important aspect to contemplate is your mental health. Graduate students have disproportionately higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to the general population [ 8 ], so your mental health will be tested greatly throughout your PhD experience. We suggest taking the time to reflect on what factors would enable you to do your best work while maintaining a healthy work–life balance. Does your happiness depend on surfing regularly? Check out coastal areas. Do you despise being cold? Consider being closer to the equator. Do you have a deep-rooted phobia of koalas? Maybe avoid Australia. Consider these potentially even more important questions like: Do you want to be close to your friends and family? Will there be adequate childcare support? Are you comfortable with studying abroad? How does the potential university treat international or underrepresented students? When thinking about your next steps, keep in mind that although obtaining your PhD will come with many challenges, you will be at your most productive when you are well rested, financially stable, nourished, and enjoying your experience.

Rule 9: Trust your gut

You have made it to our most “hand-wavy” rule! As academics, we understand the desire for quantifiable data and some sort of statistic to make logical decisions. If this is more your style, consider every interaction with a prospective supervisor, from the first e-mail onwards, as a piece of data.

However, there is considerable value in trusting gut instincts. One way to trust your gut is to listen to your internal dialogue while making your decision on a PhD supervisor. For example, if your internal dialogue includes such phrases as “it will be different for me,” “I’ll just put my head down and work hard,” or “maybe their students were exaggerating,” you might want to proceed with caution. If you are saying “Wow! How are they so kind and intelligent?” or “I cannot wait to start!”, then you might have found a winner ( Fig 2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1009330.g002.jpg

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

The last piece of advice we give you is to do this lengthy process all over again. Comparing your options is a key step during the search for a PhD supervisor. By screening multiple different groups, you ultimately learn more about what red flags to look for, compatible work styles, your personal expectations, and group atmospheres. Repeat this entire process with another supervisor, another university, or even another country. We suggest you reject the notion that you would be “wasting someone’s time.” You deserve to take your time and inform yourself to choose a PhD supervisor wisely. The time and energy invested in a “failed” supervisor search would still be far less than what is consumed by a bad PhD experience ( Fig 3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1009330.g003.jpg

The more supervisors your interview and the more advice you get from peers, the more apparent these red flags will become.

Conclusions

Pursuing a PhD can be an extremely rewarding endeavor and a time of immense personal growth. The relationship you have with your PhD supervisor can make or break an entire experience, so make this choice carefully. Above, we have outlined some key points to think about while making this decision. Clarifying your own expectations is a particularly important step, as conflicts can arise when there are expectation mismatches. In outlining these topics, we hope to share pieces of advice that sometimes require “insider” knowledge and experience.

After thoroughly evaluating your options, go ahead and tackle the PhD! In our own experiences, carefully choosing a supervisor has led to relationships that morph from mentor to mentee into a collaborative partnership where we can pose new questions and construct novel approaches to answer them. Science is hard enough by itself. If you choose your supervisor well and end up developing a positive relationship with them and their group, you will be better suited for sound and enjoyable science.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Schools & departments

Fundamentals of PhD Supervision

Fundamentals of PhD Supervision is an online course that has been developed by the Institute for Academic Development in consultation with the Doctoral College and relevant staff in Colleges and Support Services.

This course aims to help new supervisors develop their understanding of the role and responsibilities of PhD supervisors at the University of Edinburgh, and to encourage experienced supervisors to reflect on and develop their practice with an increasingly diverse PhD student population.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is this course for .

This course is for anyone who is currently supervising University of Edinburgh PhD students, or who will be supervising University of Edinburgh PhD students in the near future. This applies whether you are a Principal, Co- or Assistant Supervisor. It is suitable both for University of Edinburgh staff and supervisors who are external to the University.

When should I do this course?

It is a University expectation that all new PhD supervisors complete this course and that it is repeated every 5 years. If you are new to PhD supervision, or new to PhD supervision at the University of Edinburgh, you will ideally complete this course before you begin supervising a PhD student. 

If you are an experienced supervisor you are required to complete the training every 5 years. The course is always available so you can dip back into it at any time to refresh your knowledge of specific areas. 

How do I access the course?

University of Edinburgh staff should enrol on the course through People and Money Learning. Enrol here: Booking Link

External supervisors should contact [email protected] to gain access.

How long will it take to complete?

We estimate that it would take 3-4 hours to complete the course without watching the additional videos. The course is self-paced, you can leave and return to where you left off at any time.

To complete the course, and in order for your completion to be recorded, you must work through all modules and complete the required activities.

Does this course fulfil the compulsory training requirements for PhD Supervisors?

Yes, but your College or School may also run a supervisor briefing to complement this course. 

What does the course cover?

Fundamentals of PhD Supervision is made up of 7 modules. These are aligned to the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) Good Supervisory Practice Framework.

Introduction to PhD supervision at Edinburgh 

Recruitment and selection 

Supervisory roles, responsibilities and approaches

Setting expectations and monitoring progress

Completion and final examination

Supporting wellbeing

Supporting professional and career development

Each of these modules summarises key information for supervisors. This includes signposting relevant policies, codes and regulations, and support and training available for you and your student. In each, there is a strong emphasis on encouraging self-reflection and further reading. The next steps section offers some pointers to further professional development. 

The video content for each module is an additional part to the course. The videos are to provide further advice and information from the perspective of lived experience as a PhD supervisor. 

Does doing this course cover compulsory training requirements set by other research student funders (e.g. Research Councils)? 

This course may help supervisors to meet funder requirements as there is usually an expectation that you will meet your institutional training requirements for PhD supervisors.

However, your student's funder may require additional training beyond what is expected by the University of Edinburgh. You should check with the funder directly to ensure you are complying with any specific requirements for supervisors. 

Will my attendance be recorded?

To complete the course successfully, and in order for your completion to be recorded, you must work through all sections. People and Money will automatically track completion of the training modules.

IAD will keep a record of attendance and completion of this course. Attendance updates will be provided to your school/deanery.

You will not be issued a certificate of attendance on completion but please email [email protected] if you require one.

Who do I contact if I have comments or problems accessing the course?

If you have problems accessing the course please email [email protected]

We welcome comments on the course so please contact us if you have any feedback.  There is also a feedback form in the final module of the course.

Who do I contact if I have other questions about my role as a PhD supervisor?

Your first point of contact should be the relevant postgraduate staff in your School or Centre. This may be the PG administrative staff or the PG(R) Director or Head of the Graduate School. You can find contacts on the relevant School website:

https://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/colleges-schools

If you have problems identifying the relevant contact please email us, letting us know which School or Centre your PhD student is part of, and we will put you in touch with the relevant staff. Please email [email protected]

This article was published on 2024-02-26

PhD Courses in Denmark

Introduction to phd supervision for phd students, centre for educational development.

Supervision is a key element of the PhD process. Learn and discuss the issues, roles and challenges of PhD supervision in this compulsory course for all PhD students at the Faculty of Arts, Aarhus University.

Learning outcomes

Be familiar with the typical challenges of a PhD process with regards to supervision
Be familiar with core issues dominating the discourse on the supervisory dialogue and challenges regarding such dialogues
Be able to reflect on different supervisor and student roles present and lacking in the participants’ own supervision processes
Be able to reflect on their own writing process and how it affects the process of supervision

Content and format

PhD supervision as a didactic genre in higher education, reflected on from the PhD student’s point of view
The supervisory dialogue as a key element of the supervision process. Roles and relations between supervisor and student
The connection between the writing process and different forms of feedback during supervision meetings

Supplemental information

Preferably, this course should be taken as soon after the start of the PhD process as possible, in order for the course to play a part in the drawing up of the PhD Supervision Agreement between supervisor and student.

Following the course, the participants complete a reflection paper on the themes discussed during the course and on how they think that these themes will be relevant and apply to their own specific PhD process. This reflection paper is to be used in the PhD students’ dialogue with their supervisor(s) about their future collaboration.

The course is held in English unless all participants prefer it held in Danish.

Group work can be in both Danish and English.

For PhD students at Arts, Aarhus University only.

ECTS credits and successful completion requirements

To receive ½ ECTS credit for the course, students are required to participate actively in class discussions.

Target group

PhD students. Mandatory course for PhD students enrolled at the Graduate School at the Faculty of Arts

Information

Registration for the course: See under Link
You should expect some preparation/homework before the course begins
Including: Morning coffee/tea/ lunch + water and afternoon coffee/tea and sweets

Cookie consent

By clicking “Accept Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. Click “Disable” to reject all but strictly necessary cookies

Aarhus Universitets logo

Centre for Educational Development

Arts: introduction to phd supervision for phd students.

Learning outcome

Be familiar with the typical challenges of a PhD process with regards to supervision
Be familiar with core issues dominating the discourse on the supervisory dialogue and challenges regarding such dialogues
Be able to reflect on different supervisor and student roles present and lacking in the participants’ own supervision processes
Be able to reflect on their own writing process and how it affects the process of supervision
PhD supervision as a didactic genre in higher education, reflected on from the PhD student’s point of view
The supervisory dialogue as a key element of the supervision process. Roles and relations between supervisor and student
The connection between the writing process and different forms of feedback during supervision meetings

Supplemental information

The course is held in English unless all participants prefer it held in Danish.

Group work can be in both Danish and English.

For PhD students at Arts, Aarhus University only.

Registration

Course autumn 2024.

24 September 2024 from 10:00 -15:00 Aarhus University , Aarhus, building 1911, room 320 Registration deadline: 13 September 2024 Sign up for the course here
26 September 2024 from 10:00 - 15:00 AU Emdrup, 7210-Building A, room A401 Registration deadline: 13 September 2024 Sign up for the course here
5 February 2025 from 10:00 - 15:00 Aarhus University, Aarhus, building 1910, room 228 Registration deadline: 24 January 2025 Sign up for the course here
Target group: PhD students Mandatory course for PhD students enrolled at the Graduate School at the Faculty of Arts
ECTS: 0.5
Language: English
Format: Course with physical attendance
Course certificate: Upon satisfactory completion
Antal deltagere: Min. 5, maks. 30

Bente Kristiansen

Administrative contact.

Birthe Tillgaard

Imperial College London Imperial College London

Supervising PhD students

female tutor speaking to a group of students

Introduction to supervising PhD students

Workshop details

Dates for 2024-25 will be available from late August.

Complete the Expression of Interest Form .

Tutors Professor Martyn Kingsbury and Dr Jo Horsburgh

From April 2022, new doctoral supervisors at Imperial will be required to complete ' Fundamentals of supervising PhD students ' which is offered by the Graduate School via Cornerstone . This online course (approximately 2 hours in length) comprises four mini-modules covering: the role of Main and Co-Supervisors; effective student-supervisor partnerships; the PhD timeline, and research culture.

Administrative Enquiries Su Beasley [email protected]

Who should attend?

Academic staff from across the College who formally supervise research students. Some parts of the workshop are relevant to supervising Masters projects and dissertations, but the focus is on the PhD. This course is particularly strongly recommended for those that are new to supervision and builds on the content of the online course ‘Fundamentals of supervising PhD students’ which is offered by the Graduate School via Cornerstone .

This workshop considers the various stages and milestones of PhD supervision at Imperial and offers practical guidance on recruitment, handling the student/supervisor relationship effectively and how to help students toward completion and emergence as an independent researcher in their discipline.

Postdocs supporting PhD supervision should consider, as an alternative, the workshop Introduction to being an assistant supervisor . If you are involved in PhD supervision and are unsure about which training you require, please see this page on continuing professional development for supervisors and discuss your role with your Head of Department/Director of Postgraduate Studies.

Key 'milestones' and expectations of the Imperial College process
Expectations of the student and the supervisor
Recruiting the student
Managing the research process
Student/supervisor relationships
Using a learning agreement
The viva and examination process

Imperial STAR Framework

This workshop is particularly suitable for those seeking recognition at D1 or D2 level of the Imperial STAR Framework . It addresses the following dimensions of the Professional Standards Framework (PSF 2023): A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, K5, V1, V3.

You may also be interested in...

A practical guide to giving effective feedback

Addressing a range of issues related to feedback, that is: effectiveness, student expectations, approaches and encouraging engagement.

Introduction to personal tutoring

Helping new tutors prepare themselves for this important role and provides them with information about how they can best support their tutees.

Introduction to making teaching more inclusive

For all staff to consider how inclusive their teaching is of all learners and to explore how they can best facilitate inclusive teaching.

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

10 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor

By Eduardo D. S.
August 1, 2020

So you want to find out how to impress a PhD supervisor? Maybe you’re about to contact them about a potential project, perhaps you already have a meeting scheduled with them, or maybe you’re already one of their PhD students but you want to leave a lasting impression. Whatever your reasons, learning the correct way to impress a PhD supervisor can do wonders for building a great relationship and increasing your chances of success not only in your project but also in opening doors for your future career development.

Based on my own experiences, I’m going to share 10 of the best ways to impress a supervisor – 5 for before they agree to take you on, and 5 for when you become one of their PhD students.

5 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor Before They Agree to Supervise You

1. communicate clearly.

PhD supervisors are busy people, they receive countless emails every day from panicked students, colleagues chasing up peer-reviews, and potential PhD candidates like yourself. When you first contact a potential supervisor, stick to sending them a brief email. Note the brief there. Specify who you are, your educational background, that you are interested in their project, why you are interested in their project, and include a copy of your resume.

You can find a good breakdown of how to structure your first email here – How to Email a Potential PhD Supervisor . Whichever approach you take, the key is to keep it concise.

2. Be Knowledgeable About Your Field

All supervisors want a research student who’s knowledgeable and well-read in their field, as they tend to produce higher-quality work and encounter fewer problems. Although no one expects you to be an expert, make sure you have at least read three of the most popular journal publications in your chosen research area.

3. Research Them

Looking up the supervisor will give you an insight into their research interests, what topics they’re currently researching, and whether they’ve made any notable contributions, be it a publication, a book or a talk at a leading conference. Your goal isn’t to flatter them, but to be able to clearly explain how your project applies to them and why you would like them to be your supervisor. For example, you might pick up on the fact that the supervisor has recently published several papers or attended a number of conferences on a particular subject. Proposing a project closely linked to this area is likely to attract their attention more than a project in a subject which they haven’t published on for several years.

4. Have a Long-Term Plan

Know what you want to research, why you want to research it, and what you want to do after having completed your research.

A PhD is an enormous commitment – it can take up to 8 years, be financially challenging and mentally exhausting. A supervisor will want to reassure themselves that you genuinely believe a PhD is for you, as having a student struggle the entire way through, or worse, drop out altogether, isn’t good for any involved. Spend some time reading up on the common challenges you can expect as a PhD student and determining what your career goals are. Being able to demonstrate an awareness for both of these will help convince the supervisor that your consideration for doing a PhD is a rational one.

Project Plan for creating a good PhD supervisor relationship

5. Have a Project Plan

If you have the opportunity to discuss a project in more detail with a supervisor, keep in mind that not all first interactions will be simple introductory meetings.

Some supervisors like to jump straight in and discuss your proposed project, your methodology, how you plan to collect data, what kinds of challenges you think you may encounter, etc. Answering these questions in detail will show you’re serious about the project. You don’t necessarily need to have all the right answers here but it’s more about showing that you’ve thought about these aspects and do so from a logical standpoint. In contrast, not having well-thought-out answers will give a poor impression of your level of commitment and/or ability.

If you’ve been asked to submit a research proposal as part of your application, you can almost guarantee a large part of your meeting is going to focus on the technical aspects of the project.

5 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor After They Agree to Supervise You

It’s natural to want to impress your supervisor, but remember, if they’ve already agreed to supervise you, they’re already impressed with your academic background and research potential. In truth, most supervisors are never more impressed with their students than on the day they receive their doctorate, with all the years of independent research, publications, and hard word work paying off.

If you still want to take a few extra steps to impress your supervisor, here are 5 things you can do during your PhD studies that will get noticed:

6. Be Proactive

Plan your work, commit to your agreed schedule, and fulfil all your obligations. Nothing makes a supervisor happier than an active student taking full responsibility for his or her project. Being proactive assures your supervisor that your project will advance in the right direction, and when you do need support, it’s for genuine issues that warrant their time.

Being a talented researcher isn’t only about being able to conduct research, but also about being able to do so independently. Showing them that you’re capable of this won’t only keep them looking forward to their next meeting, but it will also give them a high level of confidence in your long-term potential.

7. Document, document, document

It happens occasionally – you get a little complacent, or you’re unusually tired that day – and you don’t label your samples or record your results with a high level of care. No matter the excuse, that’s poor practice and will make it harder for yourself when writing up your thesis, or for your supervisor when trying to discuss your results with them.

One of the simplest ways to impress your supervisor (or any fellow researcher for that matter) is to document everything clearly and systematically. This can range from creating a detailed spreadsheet to keeping a frequently updated LATEX file .

Regardless of how you document your work, stick to a single system and make it so detailed that anyone can pick up and continue your research without having to ask for clarification.

How do you impress a potential PhD supervisor

8. Network and Promote Your Research

For creating opportunities in the world of research, nothing is more influential than your reputation. Networking with other researchers within and outside of your university and promoting your work through conferences, events and journal publications improves not only your reputation but also that of your supervisors as a likely co-author. This will help them increase the reach of their work, secure new research grants and be considered for future collaborations.

However, it should be stressed that you mustn’t overstep your bounds – especially when it comes to unfinished work or areas of new potential research. Sharing something your supervisor hasn’t yet wanted to make public is the quickest way to go from impressing to annoying them.

9. Help Them

Supervisors are busy individuals, with a schedule full of lectures, lab sessions, department meetings, plus their own research.

You can earn the gratitude of your supervisor by helping them with some of their tasks, such as offering to host a tutorial on their behalf or setting up the lab for their next demonstration. You can also extend your help to new PhD students who join your research group by acting as a mentor and guiding them through the early challenges of doctoral studies, such as explaining how to order equipment or who to talk to for certain lab requirements.

Supervisors appreciate this type of action as it creates a friendly and collaborative environment for the research group for which they are ultimately responsible for.

10. Clean up After Yourself

You shouldn’t need to be told about this, but it’s surprising how many research students fail to clean up after themselves after having completed laboratory work. This not only goes against laboratory policy , but it gives a poor impression of your research group, which is especially important when you consider the fact you are likely sharing the facilities with staff members who are colleagues of your supervisor.

Cleaning up after yourself shows you respect your colleagues and your workplace and suggests that you have a high personal standard which is always commendable in the eyes of a supervisor. Besides, it’s not that difficult to discard your samples, wipe down your surfaces and record all perishable items that need to be refilled at the end of each day.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

So there you have it, 10 ways to build a good working relationship with your supervisor.

In the same way that a supervisor takes you on as a student, you’re also taking them on as a supervisor, so the relationship must work both ways for it to be successful. I strongly encourage you, in your first meetings with a potential supervisor, to get a sense of whether your personalities are complementary or whether you think there’s a clash. Try to find out what kind of character your supervisor has before joining their research group (e.g. whether they’re a hands-on supervisor or whether they’re a laid back one); if you do this right, most of my tips will fall into place naturally without you having to try.

Considering whether to do an MBA or a PhD? If so, find out what their differences are, and more importantly, which one is better suited for you.

This article will answer common questions about the PhD synopsis, give guidance on how to write one, and provide my thoughts on samples.

A science investigatory project is a science-based research project or study that is performed by school children in a classroom, exhibition or science fair.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

When you should and shouldn’t capitalise the names of chemical compounds and their abbreviations is not always clear.

The term monotonic relationship is a statistical definition that is used to describe the link between two variables.

Rakhi is a PhD student at the Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, India. Her research is on the production of Borneol and Menthol and development of separation process from the reaction mixture.

Dr Ilesanmi has a PhD in Applied Biochemistry from the Federal University of Technology Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. He is now a lecturer in the Department of Biochemistry at the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

Join Thousands of Students

Questions to Ask PhD Supervisors and How To Contact Them

How to Write an Email to a PhD Supervisor and What to Ask Them

Written by Chris Banyard

Contacting a potential PhD supervisor can seem daunting but you really should if you're thinking of applying for a doctoral programme . Dropping them an email to discuss your research area is your chance to find out whether they’d be interested in supervising you.

Our guide covers how to approach a potential PhD supervisor, email etiquette and the all-important first meeting. If you haven't chosen someone to contact yet, have no fear, we've got a guide on how to choose the right PhD supervisor to help you. We've also covered what to expect from your supervisor .

Pick the right programme for you

There are lots of choices, let us help you to make the right one. Sign up to our weekly newsletter for the latest advice and guidance from our team of experts.

Supervisors will have their own academic profile page, either on their university/departmental website or elsewhere. These pages are good resources to find out about their work and research interests in their own words. They’ll usually mention whether they’re currently accepting supervisees – and what academic areas they’re keen to supervise PhD students in.

When writing an email to a PhD supervisor, you’ll need to show that you understand their previous publications and their current research activity. Don’t assume that you can send a generic email to a potential supervisor without displaying genuine knowledge and passion of their field.

Your first email to a potential PhD supervisor should be a formal email, in many ways like an application cover letter.

1. Include a clear subject line

Make sure your initial email doesn’t have a vague subject line that could lead to it being ignored (or heading straight for the spam folder). Some examples could be:

‘Prospective PhD student interested in Hegelian dialectics’
‘Enquiry for BBSRC-funded PhD in Viral Immunology’

2. Introduce yourself in the first paragraph

The first paragraph should introduce yourself and your background, including your current level of study and any experience. You should also establish your interest in studying a research topic under the supervision of the academic. It may be useful to briefly explain why you are interested, or how you discovered the supervisor, which can be a good way of building rapport with them. Plus, you can introduce your funding status or your intention to secure funding.

3. Explain your intent

The main body of the email should explain your intent in further detail. This section could act like a mini CV, and even complement it if attached . It should highlight your eligibility and enthusiasm for PhD study, and your interest in the supervisor’s research discipline.

Here, you can also explain your funding, residential, and study mode status in more detail. If you’re applying for a specific advertised PhD project, include the name of the project.

4. Summarise your interest

The conclusion should summarise your interest in the PhD and your suitability for it. You may also include future ideas and a polite invitation to reply. Make sure you’ve provided evidence of your commitment to (and experience in) this particular research area. Give examples of your familiarity with the supervisor’s own work.

When contacting a potential PhD supervisor, it's vital that the email is kept as brief, targeted and specific as possible. Try to avoid passive or hesitant statements. Supervisors are very busy, and if they find any reason why this email is not relevant it can be ignored.

5. Sign off professionally

Conclude the email to a PhD supervisor by thanking them for their time and consideration, with a professional sign off.

Choosing the right supervisor

Finding and choosing the best supervisor for your project can sometimes be tricky. We’ve put together a handy guide on what you’ll need to take into account.

Some extra advice

Be aware of email etiquette . As a formal email, effort should be made to be polite and respectful . Be assertive but avoid rudeness or disrespect.

Use the supervisor’s correct title , starting with “Dear” and signing off with “Yours sincerely” or “Kind regards”.

Make sure there are no typos or grammatical errors, and there is clear and consistent formatting.

Have patience! Supervisors can have hectic schedules and may not be able to reply to every email in good time. If there is no reply after one or two weeks, it may be worth sending a polite reminder email. Try to avoid badgering your favoured supervisor with numerous follow up emails, as this could give a negative impression.

Frequently asked questions

Should i email more than one potential phd supervisor.

It is OK to have multiple research interests and contact multiple potential supervisors. But it is important that each contact should be carefully considered. Each email should be tailored to the PhD supervisor in question. Copy-pasting an email and sending it to multiple potential supervisors isn’t a good idea. There should also be a degree of transparency – most supervisors will understand that you may be contacting others, so long as they are not misled to believe otherwise.

Should I send a CV to a PhD supervisor?

It is usually a good idea to attach a CV along with this email. This can complement the email and will demonstrate your appropriate qualifications and experience for a PhD. It is helpful to reference the key parts of your CV within the email. This is often more important for Science, Engineering and Medicine projects than it is for Arts and Humanities. It’s a good idea to attach a PDF version of your CV to avoid any potential formatting issues.

Should I send a research proposal to a PhD supervisor?

It is usually better to identify your potential supervisor and have already contacted them before writing and submitting a research proposal. Crafting a good research proposal can be time-consuming and may require a deeper understanding of the potential supervisor’s research before starting writing. For some PhDs, such as pre-set projects, it will not be necessary to write a research proposal at all, as you’ll be applying for a PhD that has already been organised and agreed upon by a funding body.

How to prepare for a meeting with a potential PhD supervisor

Often, emails to the potential supervisor will lead to a request for a meeting . This could be in person or via a video messaging platform like Zoom, Microsoft Teams or Skype. This is a good sign – the supervisor is interested in you as a candidate and may want to find out more about you or explain more in person.

You now have an opportunity to discuss your interests, ask questions, and meet your potential supervisor to see if they are compatible with you.

Although this is not the same as a formal PhD interview , it may still be worth approaching in a similar way, including preparing for interview questions . Although this should be more relaxed than an interview, you should be prepared and professional.

Preparation

Before the meeting, make sure you are familiar with the supervisor’s research and publications. Not only does this show interest in the supervisor and the research field, it will be useful to understand some of the topics you’ll be discussing.

It may also be worth reacquainting yourself with your emails to the potential supervisor. There may be specific questions or points brought up that could be discussed further.

Finally, make a good first impression. Be interested, interesting and dress professionally.

This is the first stage of developing a potential student-supervisor relationship . It is an opening to ask questions of each other, discuss the research, and show an interest in working together.

This should be a two-way meeting . Remember to evaluate your potential supervisor, checking if they are a right fit for you. Try to learn about their supervisory style, commitment to teaching, and their ability to offer you development opportunities. It may also be a chance to meet the research team and view the laboratory facilities (if appropriate).

After the meeting, it is worth evaluating everything you have learned about each potential supervisor and begin to compare them. Ensure you keep notes and keep in contact if necessary.

Questions to ask a potential PhD supervisor

While preparing to meet a potential PhD supervisor for the first time, it’s a good idea to have an idea of several questions you’d like to ask them.

You’ll want to sound enthusiastic and engaged. Showing that you’re interested in finding out more about their research and what supervision under them would look like is one way of doing this. Here are some suggestions:

How many other PhD students do they supervise? This can be a good way to find out if you’re going to be part of a larger team of supervisees or a relatively small partnership. There may also be a chance to discover potential crossover between your research and that of your fellow students.
What opportunities are there for career development during the PhD? Ask your potential supervisor about opportunities to attend PhD conferences, publish papers and teaching responsibilities.
How often do supervisory meetings happen? The answer to this question can be indicative of whether your supervisor will take a hands-on (or hands-off) approach and help you find out how your relationship with them will play out. You might also want to ask them about their policy for reading drafts of your research.
What expectations do they have of their research students? This could entail the number of publications you make during your PhD as well as participation in conferences and workshops.

Ready to contact some universities?

All of our PhD course listings have institution contact details attached so you can get your questions answered.

Our postgrad newsletter shares courses, funding news, stories and advice

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
Hear about our upcoming study fairs
Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

Effective PhD Supervision – Chapter Two – Guidelines for Supervisors

by: Ahmed A. Wadee, Moyra Kean, Ton Dietz & Driekie Hay

It is well recognised that despite the fact that support for postgraduate students at various levels is available in South Africa, a large and unacceptable proportion of such postgraduate students do not complete their studies. Some of the reasons for this have been ascribed to:

– A lack of understanding by the students and a failure to communicate by the institution as to the standard of work required for a particular degree

– Allocation by the institutions of supervisors who are generally not interested in the topic but are forced to supervise as part of their academic commitments

– Difficulties in conceptualising the programme the student is in and a lack of clear guides – generally replaced by vague requirements

– Differences between supervisors and their approaches to supervision

– Lack of supervisory policy or standards at the departmental, faculty or institutional level

– A general lack of training for supervisors – institutions do not have a formal or informal supervisor training programme

– Time pressures and interruptions placed on supervisors by their institutions, which prevent optimal interaction with postgraduate students

– Poor record-keeping concerning supervision – supervisors do not formalise their interactions with students

– Unclear or the absence of any agreements between supervisors and students and the institution.

Other contributing factors have been identified as poor planning and management (both student and supervisor), vague and unfocused problem formulations, the collection of irrelevant data and inappropriate data analysis. Methodological difficulties may emanate from inadequate knowledge of research methodologies, lack of formal training in research and naive research skills. The inability to formulate scientific arguments, to provide a logical structure, to synthesize and to formulate research problems, and to identify the essence in information and data also influence completion rates. In all of these cases it is tempting to point fingers at students, but the responsibility and the provision of training at all levels must be taken up by the institution.

It is thus important for the supervisor to be acutely aware of factors that may impact on postgraduate studies and supervision. Apart from acquainting oneself with the issues in supervision, it is imperative that supervisors are familiar with the requirements for a PhD degree. Entry requirements, mode of study, academic and discipline-specific demands, holding full or part time jobs, and having family responsibilities are all demanding on the doctoral student. In addition, personal circumstances, integration into a department, and entering a new environment and institutional culture could lead to feelings of loneliness and isolation.

The primary expectation of supervisors by their institutions is familiarisation with all administrative and procedural requirements from registration to final acceptance of the thesis. Each university has its own rules and codes of practice, and supervisors are expected to be familiar with the procedures of their institutions. What follows here are generic suggestions on the operational issues relating to these procedures.

2.2 Procedures and Practices for the Admission and Approval of PhD Degrees

An array of procedures and practices exist and are in place in universities in South African and abroad for the admission and approval of PhD degrees. The process requires approval by a formalised ethics, postgraduate and/or university graduate studies committee with specific individuals indentified to oversee the quality and scholarship of the proposed research project. The kind of structures and committees overseeing this process may differ from university to university, but in essence their task is to ensure the university’s academic integrity and the integrity of the research publications emanating from the research and the development of the individual postgraduate student. Regardless of the institution, it is the responsibility of the department/postgraduate coordinator to ensure that the highest practice is maintained.

2.2.1 Admission requirements for a PhD degree

In general the PhD by research is perceived as the most scholarly/authentic PhD leading to an academic career. However, in keeping with international trends, universities in South Africa are moving towards awarding of the degree based on publications in peer-reviewed journals within a specified time period.

Typically the following admission requirements are applicable to prospective candidates wishing to register for a PhD degree:

i. a recognised master’s degree, recognised four-year bachelor’s degree, plus at least one year’s registration for an approved master’s degree (in some instances)
ii. a recognised three-year bachelor’s degree plus at least two years’ registration for an approved master’s degree with submissions of scholarly work in the research area in peer-reviewed journals
iii. in special circumstances, at the discretion of the Senate, an approved bachelor’s degree or qualification recognised by the Senate as equivalent, as per many universities that recognise prior learning in the area of the research work.

PhD candidates are generally expected to renew their registration annually. It is generally accepted that the duration for the completion of a PhD is five years.

2.2.2 The nature of obtaining a PhD

There are at least two perceptions of how a PhD may be obtained. The first is that the PhD is fundamentally a training in research (an apprenticeship) resulting in small steps forward in the understanding of the subject. The second is that the PhD is a period of scholastic and research endeavour culminating in a major contribution to the understanding of the discipline. The former perception is common in the natural sciences and the latter in the humanities. Clearly individual supervisors’ perceptions will lie at different positions between these perceptions.

It has been normal in many countries for different institutions and different departments to offer a range of structures or routes through to a doctoral degree. Certain levels of attendance may be expected for taught courses, but performance in these courses is not generally assessed. Consideration is now being given to practices which will assess components including taught courses, publication records and work experience.

2.3 Some Considerations for Supervisors

A supervisor may take the following into consideration when assessing the quality of the thesis from the conceptual stage and reflect on the extent to which it adheres to the following criteria:

– Application of conventional research instruments in a new field of investigation

– Combining disparate concepts in new ways to investigate a conventional issue

– Creating different conceptual awareness of existing issues

– Designing and applying existing and new field instruments in a contemporary setting

– Extending the work of others by a variety of methodologies including the use of the original methodology and innovative thinking; identification of new and emerging issues worthy of investigation; and identification of gaps in the existing knowledge and viewing these as challenges

– Demonstration of evidence that the scope and possibilities of the topic were grasped academically

– The thesis provides a systematic account of the research problem, and in formulating specific research questions, demonstrates this

– A conceptual framework has been devised such that the ultimate conclusions can be drawn.

The list is not exhaustive nor does it intend to be prescriptive but may be used as a guide.

Amongst other characteristics used to define a ‘good’ thesis, evidence of the following is generally sought:

– Critical analysis and argument

– Confidence and a rigorous, self-critical approach

– A contribution to knowledge

– Originality, creativity and a degree of risk taking

– Comprehensiveness and scholarly approach

– Appropriate use of methodology with ample evidence of research validity and reliability; presentation and structure of data and thesis; and valid, logical reasoning for the conclusions drawn.

2.3.1 Objectivity and reliability

Objective and reliable (repeatable) findings are clearly more impressive than those which are vague or inconclusive. This poses difficulties in disciplines where the research utilises small sample sizes and is difficult to measure quantitatively. This non-quantitative work is generally recorded and presented in a valid acceptable format. This problem does not exist where the data is quantitative, and where the variables are relatively few and may be identified and measured – as is invariably the case in research in the natural sciences or in quantitative research methodologies.

2.3.2 The significance of a PhD

All universities require doctoral work to be ‘significant’. However, what passes as ‘significant’ depends on the norms of the discipline. It can be argued that knowledge is ‘significant’ for its own sake, irrespective of how useless it may appear to those in other disciplines. In the social sciences and some natural sciences, ‘significance’ is widely regarded as being of help to society in some way and a contribution to knowledge.

2.3.3 Assessing a PhD thesis

Universities appoint a committee of assessors, though its composition differs among institutions. This committee normally nominates three examiners with appropriate skills or expertise in the area in which the research is undertaken. In all instances external examiners are an essential component of the process. The examiners’ reports are considered by the postgraduate committee and the institution for approval. Examiners are expected to recommend the awarding of the degree in accordance with regulations set by each university. (Please refer to the individual institution’s guidelines for such information.)

2.4 Supervisory Practices

2.4.1 Traditional models of supervision

The focus of the traditional model of supervision is usually on the technical aspects of the research, the requirements of the discipline, content knowledge and on the production of a thesis, and can be done by means of:

– Supervision by a single supervisor where one candidate works with a single supervisor on one thesis/dissertation. This model seems to work well in most disciplines. The postgraduate student and supervisor get to know and trust each other; the student feels more comfortable and knows what is expected.

– Supervision by multiple supervisors – where one candidate has two or more supervisors, one supervisor assumes the principle responsibility for supervising the candidate, but is assisted by colleagues with knowledge in other research fields. The group can have several postgraduate students under their supervision.

2.4.2 Workshop model for initiating student awareness

At the beginning of postgraduate study, students usually feel lost and confused. A workshop with other postgraduate students, presented by the academics involved, may provide guidance and training on issues such as the research proposal, academic writing skills, literature searches and reviews, research methodologies, and presentation styles and skills. In this way the postgraduate initiate is brought into the academic environment and may become familiar with various individuals offering specific support. Students would then be expected to have some of the basic skills and could progress to interacting with their supervisors more efficiently.

2.4.3 Directed team

In this model, one individual supervises a small group of students working on related topics or projects, using the same or similar methodology, in the supervisor’s area of expertise. These individuals support each other in collecting material, formulating ideas and maintaining a specific schedule. The supervisor is an expert in the specific field and will be able to focus on the details of each student’s research and work. A methodology group refers to students all using the same methodology, although they may be from different disciplines. The exchange of knowledge and experience in the methodology provides postgraduate students with an in-depth knowledge of the area. This model works well in the early stages of the postgraduate study process when students are still preparing their research proposals. Subsequently, aspects of each piece of work are carved out from the broad data collected and thereafter pursued on an individual basis with the supervisor.

2.4.4 Conference group

Conferences where postgraduate students may present their research findings and share their problems with each other are highly recommended. During such conferences supervisors and students are able to exchange ideas, learn from each other and network. This is particularly useful in national research projects which could develop into significant collaborative research undertakings.

2.5 The Supervisory Process and Tasks

In summary, supervision normally follows a process that includes statement(s) of purpose, research questions, study rationale, literature review, conceptual/theoretical framework, methodology/design, data analysis, validation, significance of the study, limitations of the study, work plan and references. These points are designed to engage the PhD candidate in his/her assessment by asking:

(a) Does the question address a crucial deficiency (silence, contradictions, gap) within the knowledge base on the topic and hold together around that tightly defined topic, and does the question convey intellectual panache?

(b) Does the question hold the potential for broader intellectual import beyond the specific locale of study?

The importance of the initial conceptualisation of the research cannot be stressed enough! Many research projects are set up for failure from the beginning, as not enough intellectual capacity, thought and expertise have been worked through in the initial planning phase. Obviously the styles/models used may differ and there is no one-size-fits-all supervisor. What is presented here are models which may be used independently or collectively vis-à-vis various supervisory opportunities.

2.5.1 Supervision goes beyond the thesis

Effective supervision goes beyond the thesis – it is attending to the broader intellectual development of a PhD candidate. Subsequently, it is important that a supervisor identifies conferences and seminars in which they can present jointly, that they travel together to serious research events, that they write together from an early stage, that they publish together and are always on the lookout for development opportunities that might advance the PhD student, that they inform the student of/direct the student towards the formation of doctoral peer support groups and encourage this formation, and that they identify resources that the student could tap into.

An effective supervisor will always attempt to facilitate connections and network the PhD student to the experts in the field within which he/she has decided to work. Therefore, it is important for the supervisor to introduce the PhD candidate to the leading thinkers in his/her field as much as possible, and to send the best work of the PhD candidate to leading thinkers/scholars who are in the same area of research – thus consciously promoting the PhD student at all times.

2.5.2 Ensuring the PhD candidate becomes independent

Although initially a PhD student depends a lot on his/her supervisor, it is incumbent on the supervisor to attempt to move the student gradually towards greater independence and to know when the candidate is ready to assume more and more responsibility for directing their own work. This implies that the supervisor should avoid making the student a clone of him/herself, but should guide the student towards a topic, theory and method that reflects his/her own ingenuity, desire and voice. It is thus necessary to expose the student, amongst other things, to the work of the supervisor’s opponents or to counter-theories on the work of the supervisor. Therefore, it is always a good idea to encourage the student to critique his/her own work. By doing so, the candidate will get used to the game of scholarly and critical ways of thinking – exactly the attributes one would like to develop within a PhD student.

2.5.3 The importance of effective feedback by the supervisor

It is desirable that the supervisor’s feedback on written submissions should be direct, fast, clear, honest and consistent. Responsiveness to the students’ work is therefore very important and should include:

– Standardisation of performance for academic delivery

– Feedback on the work’s academic coherence

– Intellectual and relevant advice as to the production of the thesis.

It is suggested that the supervisor keep records of all decisions taken during a contact/feedback session in order to ensure follow-up/continuity of the process until completion/submission (and beyond).

2.5.4 Reflecting on one’s supervisory practice

Feedback on supervision goes some ways towards levelling the playing field in a very hierarchical relationship and assists the supervisor in adjusting his/her strategy to meet the needs of particular students. It furthermore provides the base data for critical scholarship on doctoral supervision. Hard as it may be, supervisors should learn and change their styles based on feedback from their students. It may not be what supervisors wish to hear, but there is a clear benefit and there are always opportunities to do better!

2.6 Sources Consulted

– Lategan, L.O.K. 2008. An introduction to postgraduate supervision . Stellenbosch: Sun Press.

– Pearson, M. 2000. Flexible postgraduate research supervision in an open system. In Kiley, M. And Mullins, G. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2000 Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference. Adelaide. Pp 165 -177.

– Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Knight, N. 1992a. Helping postgraduate students overcome barriers to dissertation writing. In Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed). Starting Research: Supervision and Training. University of Queensland: The Tertiary Education Institute.

– Zuber-Skerritt, O. And Knight, N. 1992b. Problem definition and thesis writing: workshops for the postgraduate student. In Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed). Starting Research: Supervision and Training. University of Queensland: The Tertiary Education Institute.

– Jansen, JD. 2009. 20 Tips for effective supervision. Workshop presented at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, 20 November 2009

Next Chapter – Chapter Three: http://rozenbergquarterly.com/?p=1873

Rozenberg Quarterly

655 pages of information and entertainment in 21 sections - 3926 posts. The views and opinion expressed in this site are purely those of the individual writers and contributors to the site and do not specifically reflect the thinking and views of the RQ editorial staff.

Search this site

Like us on facebook.

August 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
February 2011
January 2011

How to prepare for PhD supervision meetings

Oct 14, 2020

Have you checked out the rest of The PhD Knowledge Base ? It’s home to hundreds more free resources and guides, written especially for PhD students.

Author: Dennis Riviera

Supervision and doctoral committee meetings are a necessary part of your PhD journey. They are a chance for your supervisors to evaluate the adequacy of your research project and monitor the progress of your work.

Or at least that is what we are usually told, right?

These meetings, however, are more than a mere report of your progress. They are the chance that all PhD students have to discuss their research plan, consider its strengths and weaknesses, and get advice from experienced academics in their field.

In essence, these meetings are essential to help you improve and carry out your studies.

To make the most of them, there are a few important things to remember. In this post, I’ll share them with you.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back.

You are responsible for organising the meeting

Make sure you organise your doctoral meeting well in advance and plan your agenda with time-realistic activities. A good way to do this is by rehearsing what you are going to present and then timing yourself.

Additionally, ask yourself if the information you are presenting is key to helping your mentors understand your research project, or if it is unessential. Remember that you want your committee meeting to give you advice, and you can best achieve this by focusing on specific problems or questions. Spending time on irrelevant information might give your supervisors and mentors the impression that their time is not being used effectively.

What should be on your agenda?

This depends on whether you are preparing your first meeting or subsequent ones. If this is your first meeting, it is always wise to allocate some time for brief introductions, especially if you have not yet had the chance to get to know the members of your doctoral committee.

Subsequent meetings might include a discussion on feedback that you received in previous meetings and how it has (or hasn’t) been helpful. In addition, you could include in your meeting an overview and standpoint of your research project, the training courses that you are taking or have taken, and the local and international conferences that you have participated in (or plan to).

Ask your main supervisor for the things to include or remove from the agenda and allocate some time for spontaneous discussion. Keep in mind that, depending on your university, the minutes of your meeting might need to be signed and sent to the graduate student office.

Help your supervisors and mentors prepare

Once you have organised your agenda and prepared what you would like to present, send your supervisors and mentors the agenda, together with a written summary of the things you have achieved.

The summary could include a short description of your research project, a timetable of all ongoing activities, and other documents that help them gain an overview of your progress. Consider the information that your mentors and supervisors need to know so that are best able to help you. For example, you could describe the type of data you have collected or expect to collect (in case they are not familiar with it), and the analyses that you plan to perform.

Lastly, do not forget to keep a professional tone in all communications.

Your PhD thesis. All on one page.

Use our free PhD structure template to quickly visualise every element of your thesis.

The final thing on your agenda

Finally, remember to put yourself on your agenda. It is your PhD. You are the one who will be immersed in the literature, designing studies, collecting and analysing data, drawing conclusions, and writing academic papers. The doctoral committee is there to help you, to turn your weaknesses into strengths, and to share with you the best of their knowledge.

Listen intently to everything that your mentors and supervisors tell you, and speak forcefully when you update them on your progress. Be aware that the questions they ask are there to guide you and improve your research. Similarly, everything you say not only updates the committee, it also lets them know about who you are and the type of researcher you are becoming.

Doctoral committee meetings should not add pressure to an already hectic PhD journey. Use these meetings wisely to move forward with your studies.

Dennis A. Rivera obtained a Master of Education at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and is now a doctoral student at UCLouvain. The focus of his research is on improving the pedagogical design of MOOC forums to promote task-oriented socio-cognitive interactions.

Interested in group workshops, cohort-courses and a free PhD learning & support community?

The team behind The PhD Proofreaders have launched The PhD People, a free learning and community platform for PhD students. Connect, share and learn with other students, and boost your skills with cohort-based workshops and courses.

Share this:, submit a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

Teaching & Learning

Research supervision training

Research supervision training and development

An overview of the professional development courses and workshops available for staff responsible for research supervision.

UCL aims to provide research supervision of very high quality. To enable this, the UCL Arena Centre provides a programme of support for all staff who are responsible for research supervision.

The core programme is divided into three stages.

An introduction to research supervision at UCL (mandatory for all staff wishing to be newly appointed as a UCL research supervisor)
Developing as a doctoral supervisor (mandatory for staff wishing to be newly appointed as a UCL research supervisor without prior doctoral supervisory experience)
Ongoing professional development for research supervisors (not mandatory)

Are you eligible to supervise?

Information about eligibility to supervise is available in the UCL Academic Manual Chapter Five (scroll down to Supervisor Guidance). Please contact your Departmental/PGR Administrator or Departmental Graduate Tutor for further support.

1. An introduction to research supervision at UCL (mandatory for all)

Format: Self-led online course

Aimed at: This course is mandatory for all members of UCL staff wishing to be appointed as research supervisors at UCL, including new members of staff with experience of research supervision at other institutions.

Experienced UCL supervisors are also encouraged to work through the course as a refresher. The course hosts a central resource containing information, guidance and links to relevant policies and materials.

Prerequisites: None

Learning outcomes: The course provides information and guidance on:

UCL’s regulations and frameworks for research supervision;
establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with your supervisees;
UCL’s doctoral skills development requirements and the Research Student Log
signposting to further support provided centrally by UCL and locally in faculties and departments.

Duration : Approximately two hours

How to join:

Go to UCL Extend - do not enter your email and password on this page - instead ensure you select the option 'UCL log in'. Then log in using your UCL single-sign on ( [email protected] and password).
Once logged into UCL Extend, click on (or copy and paste into your browser) the link to the course . Click on the "Select (Free)" button and then follow the prompts.
If you have any trouble accessing the course, email r [email protected]

2. Developing as a doctoral supervisor (mandatory for some)

Format: Workshop (online or in person)

Aimed at: Staff with no prior doctoral supervisory experience who wish to be appointed as research supervisors at UCL must attend this workshop after they have completed the 'An introduction to research supervision at UCL' online course. 

Prerequisites: To sign-up to and attend this workshop UCL staff must have first completed the ' An introduction to research supervision at UCL ' online course (hosted on the Extend platform).

Learning outcomes: After attending this session you will:

understand UCL policy and procedure for effective supervision
have shared experiences and challenges with peers 
know where to find further support and guidance

Duration: 2 hours

How to sign-up: Open this link to LearnUpon and click "Start" to enrol, then "Register" to view available dates, then proceed to sign-up for a session. To access LearnUpon you must be signed into Office365 with your UCL credentials. If you are having trouble using Learn Upon please email [email protected]

Join the Arena Microsoft Teams page here to receive notifications about Arena news and events and also bookmark our events pages on the UCL website here .

3. Ongoing professional development for supervisors (not mandatory)

The Arena Centre offers a range of options for staff who wish to continue their development as research supervisors once they have completed any relevant mandatory training mentioned above.

We host regular workshops and sessions aimed at more experienced supervisors, covering topics such as:

An Introduction to Examining the Doctorate This session reviews all the stages of examining a doctorate, and focuses on good practice and potentially tricky situations. It's designed for anyone assessing any kind of doctoral award, whether as an internal or an external examiner, or in-person, hybrid or online. How to sign-up: Open this unique link to LearnUpon (specific to this workshop only) and click "Start" to enrol, then "Register" to view available dates, then proceed to sign-up for a session.
Supervising Masters Projects and Dissertations This session will introduce staff who supervise masters projects and dissertations to tools for setting expectations and defining boundaries. It will also explore when you should seek support or guidance. How to sign-up: Open this unique link to LearnUpon (specific to this workshop only) and click "Start" to enrol, then "Register" to view available dates, then proceed to sign-up for a session.
Effective Co- and team supervision Join us at this workshop where we will explore good practice in team and co-supervision, considering different examples of how supervision works across UCL. How to sign-up: Open this unique link to LearnUpon (specific to this workshop only) and click "Start" to enrol, then "Register" to view available dates, then proceed to sign-up for a session.
Inclusive Supervision Recent research by Wellcome (2020) explored what researchers think about the cultures they work in and recommended cultures and environments that promote creativity, inclusion and integrity. This session explores inclusive approaches to supervisory practice, focusing on communication, trust, belonging and advocacy. We will explore case studies and discuss our own areas of best practice, as well as reflecting on strategies for supporting our own wellbeing and healthy working practices. How to sign-up: Open this unique link to LearnUpon (specific to this workshop only) and click "Start" to enrol, then "Register" to view available dates, then proceed to sign-up for a session.
Supporting PGR Mental Health and Wellbeing This session is designed to help supervisors recognise indicators of mental health problems and potential triggers, understand the boundaries of their responsibilities and capabilities, confidently signpost PGR students to appropriate support, and be mindful of their own wellbeing and healthy working practices. How to sign-up: Open this unique link to LearnUpon (specific to this workshop only) and click "Start" to enrol, then "Register" to view available dates, then proceed to sign-up for a session.
Supporting PGR Writing and Giving Effective Feedback Successful doctoral students must write well. Academic disciplines exist in their texts and practices, and a student’s success in their discipline will depend mainly on how proficiently and purposefully they can write. Supervisors play a key role in supporting the development of their students’ research writing and its dissemination, by encouraging regular writing and enabling progress by providing good feedback. How to sign-up: Open this unique link to LearnUpon (specific to this workshop only) and click "Start" to enrol, then "Register" to view available dates, then proceed to sign-up for a session.

To access LearnUpon you must be signed into Office365 with your UCL credentials. If you are having trouble using LearnUpon please email [email protected]

Dedicated support is available annually through the Arena Centre for UCL supervisors to apply for professional recognition of their supervisory practice through the UK Council for Graduate Education.

The application for recognition is an evidence-based reflective account of supervisory practice aligned to the criteria of the UKCGE Good Supervisory Practice framework.

For further information contact Dr Nick Grindle (Arena Centre)

Education events

Funnelback feed: https://cms-feed.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-lear... Double click the feed URL above to edit

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

The Ultimate Guide to Emailing Prospective PhD Supervisor

Embarking on the journey towards a Ph.D. is a momentous step in one’s academic and professional life. As you set your sights on this challenging yet rewarding path, a crucial initial stride involves reaching out to prospective Ph.D. supervisors. The art of crafting that introductory email is more than a formality – it’s your first chance to make a lasting impression.

In the world of academia, where precision meets passion and mentorship is paramount, composing an email to a potential Ph.D. supervisor requires finesse. This blog post serves as a guide through the labyrinth of considerations, providing insights on how to artfully construct that crucial first email. From the subject line that beckons attention to the closing remarks that leave a positive resonance, we’ll delve into the intricacies of communication that can pave the way for meaningful mentorship.

So, whether you’re a prospective graduate student navigating the uncharted waters of doctoral studies or an academic advisor seeking to impart wisdom to your mentees, join us on this exploration of the nuanced art of emailing a prospective Ph.D. supervisor. Let’s unlock the secrets to making that digital handshake not just professional, but genuinely impactful. After all, in the realm of academic pursuits, the first email is more than a correspondence – it’s the prologue to a potential scholarly alliance.

Introduction

Subject line mastery, personalized greeting, introduction of yourself, expressing genuine interest.

Aligning Your Academic and Research Background with the Professor's Work:

Showcasing Relevant Skills and Experiences:

Asking if the professor is currently accepting new phd students:, how to format and present attachments, showcasing humility and openness, conveying openness to discussing potential research directions:.

Connecting Your Aspirations with the Professor's Expertise:

Leaving the Door Open for Further Discussion:

Proofreading tips to ensure clarity and correctness:.

Acknowledging the Professor's Busy Schedule:

Reinforcing the Importance of Patience in the Process:

Download the email the template here:.

Embarking on a Ph.D. journey is akin to stepping onto a scholarly odyssey, and the first email to a prospective supervisor serves as the compass. It’s not merely an introduction; it’s the key to unlocking doors to academic mentorship and research collaboration. This email lays the foundation for what could be a transformative alliance in the pursuit of knowledge.

In the realm of academia, where ideas are exchanged as currency, a generic email won’t suffice. A well-crafted and personalized message not only demonstrates your genuine interest but also reflects your commitment to excellence. It’s the difference between a fleeting acknowledgement and a memorable introduction that resonates with a potential mentor.

Approaching a prospective Ph.D. supervisor demands a delicate balance of professionalism and respect. This initial email is your opportunity to showcase not only your academic aptitude but also your interpersonal skills. Remember, you’re not just presenting yourself as a potential researcher; you’re extending a courteous invitation for collaboration.

The subject line is the gateway to your email – it’s the first impression your prospective supervisor will have of your communication. In a crowded inbox, a compelling and relevant subject line is your beacon, guiding your email out of the sea of messages and into the forefront of the recipient’s attention.

Provide actionable tips for crafting a subject line that stands out. Here are some examples:

Be Specific and Concise: “Inquiry Regarding Potential Ph.D. Supervision Opportunity”
Highlight Your Connection: “Admired Your Research on [Specific Topic] – Seeking PhD Guidance”
Express Enthusiasm: “Passionate Prospect Seeking Research Adventure Under Your Guidance”
Include Your Name: “John Doe’s Inquiry: Exploring PhD Opportunities in [Field]”
Avoid Ambiguity: “Ph.D. Application Inquiry – [Your Full Name]”

By incorporating these elements into your subject line, you’re not only conveying professionalism but also giving the recipient a clear understanding of the purpose of your email.

When addressing a potential PhD supervisor, the use of the correct title and surname is not just a matter of etiquette; it’s a demonstration of your respect for their position and accomplishments. Instead of a generic “Dear Professor,” consider addressing them as “Dear Dr. [Last Name]” or as per any specific preference they may have indicated.

In this section, you have the opportunity to present yourself as more than just a name in an email signature. Start with a succinct introduction that includes your current academic status, major field of study, and any relevant academic achievements. For instance, “I am currently completing my master’s degree in [Your Field] at [Your University], where my research has focused on [Brief Description of Your Research]. My academic journey has equipped me with a solid foundation in [Key Academic Areas], and I am eager to further explore these domains through doctoral studies.”

Beyond stating your academic credentials, take a moment to articulate why you are specifically reaching out to this particular professor. Showcase your awareness of their work and its impact on your academic interests. An example could be, “Having delved into your published works, particularly your groundbreaking research on [Specific Topic], I am captivated by the potential intersections between my academic background and your ongoing projects. Your innovative approach to [Highlighted Concept] aligns seamlessly with my research aspirations, and I am eager to explore potential collaboration under your guidance.”

This section is your opportunity to communicate your enthusiasm for the professor’s research. Instead of generic statements, articulate your genuine interest. For instance, “I am writing to express my deep interest in your research, particularly in the area of [Specific Research Area]. The innovative approaches and groundbreaking contributions your work has made in [Highlighted Concept] have greatly inspired my academic pursuits. Your dedication to pushing the boundaries of knowledge in this field aligns seamlessly with my own passion for [Related Academic Interest], and I am eager to contribute to the ongoing dialogue under your mentorship.”

Going beyond a general expression of interest, take a moment to highlight specific aspects of the professor’s work that have resonated with you. This could include mentioning specific papers, projects, or methodologies. An example could be, “Your recent paper on [Paper Title] caught my attention, especially the way you navigated [Highlighted Methodology]. This innovative approach aligns perfectly with my own research interests, and I am eager to explore potential areas of collaboration or build upon this methodology in my doctoral studies.”

Explaining Your Fit

Aligning your academic and research background with the professor’s work:.

This section serves as the bridge between your academic journey and the professor’s research landscape. Instead of generic statements, explicitly align your academic and research background with the professor’s work.

For instance, “Given my academic journey in [Your Field], I have cultivated a deep interest in [Specific Academic Area], an interest that resonates strongly with your impactful work in [Professor’s Research Area]. My thesis on [Your Thesis Topic] allowed me to delve into similar methodologies and challenges as those addressed in your research on [Professor’s Research Topic]. This alignment not only fuels my passion for the subject but also positions me as a candidate eager to contribute meaningfully to your ongoing research endeavours.”

Beyond academic alignment, it’s crucial to showcase the practical skills and experiences that make you a valuable addition to the research team.

For instance, “My hands-on experience with [Specific Research Technique] during my internship at [Relevant Institution] has equipped me with the skills necessary to contribute effectively to your ongoing project on [Professor’s Project]. Additionally, my role as [Your Role] at [Previous Institution] allowed me to refine my [Highlight Relevant Skills], skills that I believe would complement your research group’s objectives. I am excited about the prospect of bringing these skills to your team and contributing to the innovative work for which your research group is renowned.”

Stating Your Purpose

This section marks the transition from expressing interest to explicitly stating your intent. Be straightforward and unambiguous in expressing your interest in pursuing a Ph.D. under the professor’s guidance. For instance, “I am writing to express my keen interest in joining your research group for a Ph.D. program. Your work has been a guiding light in my academic journey, and I am enthusiastic about the prospect of contributing to and learning from your esteemed research team. I am particularly interested in exploring potential Ph.D. opportunities under your mentorship and would be grateful for any guidance you can provide regarding the application process.”

Don’t leave room for assumptions; directly inquire about the professor’s availability for new Ph.D. students. For instance, “I understand the demands on your time, and I appreciate your consideration of my inquiry. Before proceeding further, I would like to inquire about the current status of Ph.D. opportunities within your research group. Are you currently accepting new Ph.D. students, and if so, what steps should I follow in the application process? Your guidance in this matter would be immensely valuable as I navigate this next step in my academic journey.”

Attaching Your CV and Academic Transcript

This section serves as the backbone of your introduction. Attachments such as your CV and academic transcript provide a detailed snapshot of your academic journey. Emphasize the importance of these documents in showcasing your qualifications. For instance, “To provide you with a comprehensive overview of my academic background and research experiences, I have attached my Curriculum Vitae (CV) and academic transcript. These documents encapsulate my educational journey, research endeavours, and relevant skills. I believe they will offer you valuable insights into my qualifications and suitability for potential Ph.D. opportunities within your research group.”

Ensure that your attachments are presented in a clean and organized manner. Consider guidance such as, “For your convenience, I have attached the documents in PDF format to maintain formatting integrity. The CV provides an overview of my academic and professional background, while the academic transcript offers a detailed account of my coursework and performance. I hope this format is suitable; however, please let me know if you prefer an alternative format or if additional documentation would assist you in evaluating my candidacy.”

This section is your opportunity to showcase humility and eagerness to be a part of the academic community. Express your passion for learning and collaboration. For instance, “I am eager to embark on this Ph.D. journey not only to deepen my understanding of [Your Field] but also to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing research in your esteemed research group. Your mentorship is invaluable, and I am excited about the prospect of learning from your wealth of experience. I look forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you and fellow researchers in pushing the boundaries of knowledge.”

Demonstrate your flexibility and openness to aligning your research goals with the professor’s expertise. Communicate this willingness clearly. For instance, “While my academic background has led me to develop a keen interest in [Your Field], I am open to tailoring my research focus to align with the ongoing projects within your research group. I believe that collaborative exploration of potential research directions will not only enrich my doctoral experience but also contribute meaningfully to the objectives of your research team. I would be honoured to discuss potential research directions further and explore how my skills and interests can complement the goals of your research group.”

Highlighting Your Motivation

This section allows you to offer a glimpse into your personal motivations, driving your pursuit of a Ph.D. Share these motivations sincerely. For instance, “The decision to pursue a Ph.D. is deeply rooted in my passion for [Your Field]. My experiences have fueled a desire to not only contribute to the academic discourse but also to address real-world challenges in this field. The prospect of conducting research under your mentorship aligns perfectly with my aspiration to make meaningful contributions to the ongoing conversations in [Your Field].”

Connecting Your Aspirations with the Professor’s Expertise:

Demonstrate how your personal aspirations align with the professor’s expertise, creating a synergy that benefits both parties. For instance, “Your expertise in [Professor’s Expertise] strongly resonates with my long-term goal of [Your Aspiration]. I am motivated not only to deepen my understanding of [Your Field] but also to leverage that knowledge to [Specific Aspiration or Contribution]. Your mentorship, rooted in your extensive work on [Professor’s Research Area], positions you as the ideal guide to help me translate my aspirations into impactful research outcomes.”

Proposing a Follow-up

This section marks the transition from an introductory email to a potential dialogue. Suggest a follow-up action that takes the conversation beyond email. For instance, “I would be delighted to discuss my potential Ph.D. journey further. If convenient, may I propose a meeting or a brief call at your earliest convenience? I believe that a more in-depth conversation would provide a valuable opportunity for me to learn more about your research group and for us to explore potential areas of collaboration.”

Conclude the email by expressing your openness to ongoing dialogue. For instance, “I am open to any additional information or documentation you may require and am eager to continue our conversation. Your insights and guidance are highly valuable to me, and I look forward to the possibility of further discussing how I can contribute to the vibrant research community within your department.”

Being Professional

Maintaining a professional tone in your communication is paramount when reaching out to a prospective Ph.D. supervisor. This sets the stage for a respectful and constructive interaction. Instead of overly casual language, opt for a tone that reflects your seriousness and respect for the professor’s position. For instance, “In the interest of maintaining a professional and respectful dialogue, I am writing to express my interest in pursuing a Ph.D. under your guidance.”

Proofreading is an essential step to ensure your email is clear, error-free, and leaves a lasting impression. Consider these tips:

Clarity: Read your email from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with your background. Ensure that your message is clear and easily understood.
Grammar and Spelling: Use tools like spell-check, but also manually review your email for grammatical errors. Incorrect grammar can detract from the professionalism of your communication.
Conciseness: Ensure your email is concise and to the point. Professors often have limited time, so brevity while maintaining completeness is key.
Formality: Check that your salutation, closing, and overall language maintain a level of formality appropriate for academic communication.
Relevance: Confirm that all content in your email, including attachments, is relevant to the purpose of reaching out to the prospective supervisor.

By investing time in careful proofreading, you not only demonstrate attention to detail but also present yourself as a candidate who values precision in academic communication.

Respecting Their Time

In academia, where time is a precious commodity, brevity and clarity in communication are invaluable. Instead of lengthy paragraphs, aim for concise and focused messaging. For instance, “I understand the demands on your schedule and appreciate your time. In the interest of brevity, I would like to express my interest in joining your research group for a Ph.D. program. Attached is my CV and academic transcript for your review. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss potential collaboration further.”

Acknowledging the Professor’s Busy Schedule:

Open your email with a polite acknowledgement of the professor’s busy schedule to set the tone for respectful interaction. For instance, “I hope this email finds you well amidst your demanding schedule. I understand the commitments that come with your esteemed position, and I truly appreciate your time in considering my inquiry about potential Ph.D. opportunities within your research group.”

Follow-Up Etiquette

It’s not uncommon for busy academics to have overflowing inboxes. If you haven’t received a response after a reasonable period, consider sending a polite follow-up. For instance, “I hope this message finds you well. I understand that you have a busy schedule, and I appreciate your time in considering my initial inquiry about potential Ph.D. opportunities. I wanted to follow up and express my continued interest in joining your research group. If there’s additional information you require from my end or if you would prefer to schedule a time for a brief discussion, please let me know. I understand your commitments and would be grateful for any guidance you can provide.”

Patience is key when reaching out to prospective Ph.D. supervisors. Reinforce this to your readers by stating, “In the realm of academia, timelines can vary, and professors may have numerous commitments demanding their attention. While it’s natural to be eager for a response, practising patience is crucial. Allow for a reasonable window of time before considering a follow-up. Remember that the application and response process for Ph.D. opportunities can take time, and demonstrating patience is a testament to your understanding of the demands of academic life.”

Email Template Regarding Potential Ph.D. Supervision Opportunity

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Potential Ph.D. Supervision Opportunity

Dear Dr. [Last Name],

I hope this email finds you well amidst your academic commitments.

I am writing to express my sincere interest in joining your esteemed research group as a Ph.D. student. Having thoroughly explored your groundbreaking work in [Professor’s Research Area], I am captivated by the depth and innovation of your research contributions.

A little about myself: I am currently completing my master’s degree in [Your Field] at [Your University], where my research has focused on [Brief Description of Your Research]. My academic journey has equipped me with a solid foundation in [Key Academic Areas], and I am eager to further explore these domains through doctoral studies.

Your expertise in [Professor’s Expertise] strongly resonates with my long-term goal of [Your Aspiration]. I am motivated not only to deepen my understanding of [Your Field] but also to leverage that knowledge to [Specific Aspiration or Contribution]. Your mentorship, rooted in your extensive work on [Professor’s Research Area], positions you as the ideal guide to help me translate my aspirations into impactful research outcomes.

Enclosed, please find my Curriculum Vitae (CV) and academic transcript for your review. I hope these documents provide a comprehensive overview of my academic background and research experiences.

I understand the demands on your schedule and appreciate your time in considering my inquiry about potential Ph.D. opportunities within your research group. If there’s additional information you require from my end or if you would prefer to schedule a time for a brief discussion, please let me know. I am open to any further guidance you can provide.

Thank you for considering my application. I look forward to the possibility of contributing to the vibrant research community within your department and am excited about the potential for collaboration.

Warm regards,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Contact Information]

Please enter your details to download the Email template:

Unlock Exclusive Access to the PhD Navigator Tool – for a Streamlined Research Experience for FREE!

Dear fellow researchers,

If you are a PhD research scholar or planning to pursue PhD, I understand the value of time in your PhD journey. That’s why I have organized my blog posts related to PhD meticulously, categorizing more than 100 articles into various stages of PhD (from planning of PhD to careers after PhD).

You can get this tool ABSOLUTELY FREE , by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “Subscribe: PhD Navigator Tool-1.0” By subscribing not only will you gain free access to this invaluable tool, but you’ll also receive regular updates on this tool and our blog’s latest insights, tips, and resources tailored for researchers.

You can also visit my all articles related to PhD in my PhD Section . Of course, theses articles are in random order as I have written them whenever I got new ideas.

Happy researching!

Best regards,

Dr Vijay Rajpurohit

In the intricate journey of academia, the initial email to a prospective Ph.D. supervisor is not merely a formal introduction; it is the opening chord in a potential symphony of collaboration and scholarly exploration. As we navigate the art of crafting this pivotal communication, let us not forget that behind each email address is a world of dedication, expertise, and a commitment to advancing knowledge.

By meticulously weaving elements of professionalism, genuine interest, and humility into our messages, we create a tapestry that not only captures attention but resonates with the spirit of academic curiosity. As we embark on the journey of seeking mentorship, let this be a reminder that each email is an opportunity—a bridge to connect with a mentor, a gateway to academic camaraderie, and a testament to the passion that fuels the pursuit of knowledge. May your emails be not just correspondences but stepping stones toward meaningful academic alliances.

Upcoming Events

Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
Visit for Research Internships Worldwide

Article Contents

1. introduction and objectives, 2. situating the account: research evaluation and the humanities, 3. exploring quality from within: conceptualizations and procedures, 4. entry points to field-type quality notions in humanities research, 5. discussion and concluding remarks.

< Previous

Quality from within: Entry points to research quality in the humanities

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Klara Müller, Linus Salö, Sverker Sörlin, Quality from within: Entry points to research quality in the humanities, Research Evaluation , Volume 33, 2024, rvae029, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae029

Permissions Icon Permissions

It is well known that research quality notions vary across research fields. Despite this, humanities quality notions are often portrayed as deviant or particularly hard to grasp. To some extent, this has a historical explanation, as notions from within the humanities have not been the standards used in the development of research evaluation tools. Accordingly, we argue that current discussions on research evaluation and quality notions reflect a lack of understanding of how field-type quality notions in the humanities can be studied. We therefore identify entry points to further studies on how humanities scholars address quality notions in their own words, what one might call ‘quality from within’. The suggested entry points are assessment for recruitment, field-type internal evaluations, public debates on the humanities, book reviews, the academic seminar, PhD supervision, academic memoirs, obituaries and the Festschrift . We here outline how an empirically grounded research agenda around quality in humanities research can be fruitfully pursued. Thus, the study aims to contribute insights into why and how a fresh perspective can provide us with much-needed entry points to understanding quality from within.

In this day and age, quality is everywhere, and almost everything is evaluated in one way or another. The realm of science is certainly no exception. On the contrary, quality is at once a buzzword in science policy and a feature of everyday academic life (e.g. Lamont 2009 ; Benner 2011 ; Dahler-Larsen 2019 ). Grant proposals, scientific articles, student essays, instructor performance—whatever the task or genre, ample efforts go into gauging, establishing or increasing its quality. Yet, given the centrality of quality notions, it is surprising that the stock of knowledge about what constitutes research quality is so scant. This may be particularly true for the humanities. Much of what we know about quality in this vast, diverse and multicore research area pertains to negative definitions: what quality is not in the humanities. An explanation for this state of affairs could be that the humanities have, for a period of several decades, perceived themselves—rightly or not—as being on the defensive, fending off what have been perceived as externally imposed quality articulations ( Ochsner, Hug and Galleron 2017b ; Ekström and Östh Gustafsson 2022 ; Ekström and Sörlin 2022 ).

As scholars immersed in humanities knowledge environments, we have not found substantive empirical support for the concern—real or perceived—that research quality occupies a less central place in the humanities than it does in other research areas. Our concern is, however, the lack of clearly signposted entry points through which to empirically explore research quality notions from within the humanities. In this article, accordingly, we focus on research quality originating from within specific research fields, identified by Langfeldt et al. (2020) as ‘field-type’ quality notions. Rather than interrogating how quality is evaluated by external means and instances, we turn to how researchers have reasoned about the sort of ‘quality cultures’ that are locally cultivated within their own disciplinary practices ( Lamont 2009 ). We are interested in what one might call ‘quality from within’, as opposed to those indicators of quality that are perceived as ‘imposing’, as quality notions coming from the ‘outside’. Those from the ‘outside’ have often been questioned by members of the humanities research community as imprecise, irrelevant or serving controversial ends ( Ochsner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ). However, we acknowledge that all research quality notions are, to varying degrees, created through negotiations between what can be described as the internal and external. This phenomenon is captured in what Müller (2024) denotes as responsive quality articulations, which points to how quality notions of the humanities percolate as responses to other quality notions. These ‘other’ notions may, in many cases, be identified as space-type quality notions, which originate in policy and funding spaces and are thus distinct from field-type notions ( Langfeldt et al. 2020 ).

The purpose of this article is to identify and critically discuss a set of empirical entry points for studying quality notions in humanities research. More specifically, we seek to signpost where ‘field-type’ notions of research quality linger by accounting for some of the ways in which humanities scholars themselves have understood, discussed and evaluated research quality, both as individuals and as socially organized epistemic communities, such as professional organizations, institutes and disciplines. While not exhaustive, the examples we present make up a broad and representative set of ways in which research quality in the humanities has been negotiated historically and contemporarily. These entry points serve to outline how an empirically grounded research agenda around quality in humanities research can be fruitfully pursued.

Our approach to the topic is not exclusive to any particular region, but we draw primarily on empirical observations from the development of humanities in Sweden, a population-wise small country with a high R&D intensity in STEM fields and a sizeable but less prominent position in humanities research. 1 In this regard, Sweden is certainly not unique ( Holm, Jarrick and Scott 2015 ; Benneworth, Gulbrandsen and Hazelkorn 2016 ).

We argue that current research on research quality and evaluation lacks perspectives coming from within the humanities and, more generally, a historical understanding of the emergence of field-type quality notions. The time depth of most studies, to our knowledge, is low indeed, almost as if there had been no articulated understanding of research quality before metrics intervened. Consequently, a wide range of empirical material that we believe could enrich the discourse and practice of quality has been overlooked. By addressing this knowledge gap, we want to reframe current discussions on what research quality means in the humanities, and what it meant in the past. Our contribution aims to investigate this in practice by drawing on field-type empirical material to provide a number of previously overlooked entry points, however challenging they may be to capture.

In many countries across the global north, the advent of heightened governance and metrics-based evaluation and rankings of research took off in the 1990s, after which ‘the search for excellence’ swiftly picked up in speed and intensity ( Benner 2011 ; see also Franssen and Wouters 2019 ). Scholarly communities followed suit as quality-ensuring practices, notably systematized peer review, were broadly implemented ( Baldwin 2018 ). This development, which certainly included Sweden, was linked to ambitions to enhance accountability and differentiate the research component of national higher education systems ( Sörlin 2007 ; Benner and Holmqvist 2023 ). The new regime of evaluation did not affect all scientific fields evenly—neither at the same time nor in the same vein. According to Whitley (2007) , the use of peer review to secure the quality of individual works, or metrics to evaluate and rank individuals and collectives, impacted different fields and their existing quality notions in varying ways. This interaction sometimes led to clashes, with whatever was already in place within fields and their historically developed value economies, publishing practices and, thus, quality notions ( Ekström and Sörlin 2012 ; Hammarfelt and de Rijcke 2015 ; Salö 2017 ). From this, it followed that the metrics-driven quality culture was most intensely criticized by parts of the humanities and the social sciences. What was initially described as an emerging economy of publications and citations ( Larsson 2009 ) soon became an object of critical concern (e.g. Nylander et al. 2013 ; Widmalm 2013 ; see Engwall, Edlund and Wedlin 2023 for a recent critical analysis).

During the early 2000s, humanities scholars opposed the use of certain tools for evaluating research quality (e.g. Glänta 2005 ; Elvebakk and Enebakk 2006 ). This critique was particularly aimed at the use of quantitative measurements, originally developed for other areas connected to ideas about ‘objectifying the judgment’ ( Guillory 2005 ). Metrics such as publication counts, journal impact factors, H- and other indexes or citation numbers were perceived by some humanities scholars as reasonable and useful tools, while others regarded them as conflicting with prevailing quality notions ( Sörlin 2018 ).

The main fault line in these debates or controversies, waged as they were within and between different spheres of society, concerned the idea, or concept, of quality. As noted earlier, quality has been omnipresent as a desire among policy makers and as a terrain of struggle among scholars—particularly those within the humanities. Yet, the meanings of quality are not absolute, fixed or timeless but rather flexible and context-dependent. The evolution of quality notions thus constitutes a relevant research object to explore using historical and sociological approaches ( Langfeldt et al. 2020 ).

The lack of knowledge on research quality in the social sciences and the humanities has, however, led to an increased interest in empirical studies more recently, with organizations such as the European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities serving as the meeting place for these efforts ( Ochsner, Galleron and Ionescu 2017a ). In this article, we draw inspiration from work by Ochsner et al. that has emphasized the need to assess humanities research through its ‘own approaches’ ( Hug, Ochsner and Daniel 2013 ; Hug and Ochsner 2014 ; Ochsner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ; Ochsner, Hug and Galleron 2017b ).

In the general discourse on research evaluation, highlighting the ‘otherness’ of the humanities has been a common practice ( Franssen and Wouters 2019 ). One type of research drawing on this claim highlights the flaws in currently used tools and practices, such as research on the (under)representation of the humanities in databases used for bibliometric analysis ( Hammarfelt 2014 ; 2016 ). Another strand of critique is about the implications of certain evaluation practices in the humanities, primarily the implications of metrics in academic knowledge production ( Hammarfelt and de Rijcke 2015 ; Nästesjö 2021 ).

This research, derived from the ‘quality wars’ in academia in general and the humanities in particular, has enhanced our understanding of research quality and energized the discussion of evaluation practices. However, all examples mentioned here have a contemporary focus, looking primarily at how to change currently used tools in order to make them ‘fairer’ for humanities scholars. While important and relevant, this focus on ‘mend-and-repair’ – how to formulate and operationalize quality vis-à-vis the contemporary situation—disregards how certain quality notions came to be dominant in the first place, how the discourse of quality was enabled and what this history might imply for our current understanding of quality issues.

Two pivotal concepts in our approach are ‘entry points’ and the idea of exploring the humanities ‘from within’. A third one, of course, is ‘the humanities’, here understood as a broad and heterogeneous denominator of scholarly activity which comprises numerous disciplines as well as trans-, post- and anti-disciplinary environments ( Benneworth, Gulbrandsen and Hazelkorn 2016 ; Krämer 2018 ). The humanities comprise a wide range of organizational units, which harness their own quality notions to varying degrees, akin to other areas of research where field-type and space-type quality notions coexist and conflict ( Langfeldt et al. 2020 ). However, drawing on recent efforts to historicize the humanities as a heterogeneous and yet still comprehensible area of knowledge, we follow the impetus of tracing the humanities beyond their individual disciplinary arrays ( Bod et al. 2016 ; Ekström and Östh Gustafsson 2022 ; Paul 2022a ). This broad approach makes it possible to establish a set of preliminary insights into research quality in the humanities.

Yet, to invoke the view ‘from within’ is to opt for an approach where locally and internally cultivated and perceived quality notions—emic perspectives—are brought to the fore. The basic assumption is that understandings of quality, or clues thereof, are empirically accessible within the practices of academic life. Conceptually, our stance is that the study of individuals’ perceptual involvement in the fields they inhabit is part and parcel of field-type quality notions, insofar as the value economies of fields are taken up or embodied throughout the life histories of those who have dwelled therein over a prolonged period of time ( Ingold 2000 ). For example, through their experiences of taking part in the key practices of the first category, their sense and judgement of research quality is at once shaped and shaping.

This aspiration is reflected in our cases. Initially, we attempted to map available methods based on existing literature, inspired by Budtz Pedersen, Følsgaard Grønvad and Hvidtfeldt (2020) . This proved challenging due to the scarcity of literature dealing directly with matters of research quality in the humanities, and since quality articulations from within often appear against the backcloth of a primary object or as an implicit feature of something else, such as peer review ( Forsberg et al. 2022 ). Quality may go under another name or be rendered salient only by implication. Moreover, rather than focusing on how to explore quality methodologically, our sensitization to ‘entry points’ reflects an interest in signposting where quality notions may be found. Thus, we take an interest in identifying more or less institutionalised academic practices where different types of quality notions linger, as a first step in a pursuit of investigating them empirically. From this vantage point, we collectively undertook a literature review in search of work describing arenas of quality. The outcome of this exercise was a long list of plausible cases, many of which pertained to institutionalized academic activities where systematic quality work has been practised for a long time and where quality notions, accordingly, are discernible. Typically, these are local arenas where field-type value economies are rendered salient, albeit often by normatively expressed dominant agents licensed to speak in the name of the field in question. Examples of such arenas include procedures of evaluation in recruitment and field-type internal evaluations but also, digging deeper into the empirical realities of everyday work life, practices such as the academic seminar and PhD supervision.

In the following sections, the findings are presented according to the various entry points identified from our research in the following order:

Assessment for recruitment

Field-type internal evaluations, public debates on the humanities, the academic seminar, phd supervision, scholarly book reviews, academic memoirs, obituaries and ‘festschriften’.

Some sections, such as ‘Assessment for recruitment’, draw more extensively on previous studies, with concrete examples and insights to sources which have not yet been framed as field-type quality notions. Others, such as ‘The academic seminar’, explore plausible data sources that have received less attention in the context of research quality notions, thus, serving as avenues for further inquiry.

Notably, while some entry points, such as PhD supervision, stand out as being broad, nested and multi-activity practices, others, such as scholarly book reviews, are characterized by being fairly specialized and by materializing in a particular artifact where notions of research quality are encoded. While acknowledging that the selected entry points differ in this vein, we also hold that the approach opted for has allowed us to examine the complex nature of how research quality notions of the humanities coexist and develop, drawing from both more established understandings as well as overlooked areas of interest. Navigating through these entry points, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of how quality is perceived, and evaluated in humanities research.

One of the more frequently used entry points in previous studies of research quality and related themes are external expert reviews in processes of position appointments, promotion and other procedures linked to professional advancement (e.g. Hamann 2019 ). It follows that most of what is currently known about quality notions from within the humanities has been extracted by analysing expert reports (see e.g. Nilsson 2009 ; Gunvik-Grönbladh 2014 ; Hammarfelt 2017 ; Hamann and Kaltenbrunner 2022 ; Ganuza and Salö 2023 ). By considering these expert opinions as a potential entry point to the study of quality from within , we redefine the category of empirical material.

While procedures of this sort are practised in many academic systems, it is a longstanding and deeply institutionalized practice in Sweden and other countries alike, where senior peers who work elsewhere but are active in the same or an adjacent field are tasked to evaluate all candidates and rank them vis-à-vis a number of criteria ( Riis, Hartman and Levander 2011 ; Gunvik-Grönbladh 2014 ). The professional judgement of the referees thus becomes the core of a gatekeeping mechanism based on, among other things, field-type quality notions (e.g. Hammarfelt, Rushforth and de Rijcke 2020 ).

In Sweden, studies have been able to tease out humanities quality notions by comparing humanities fields with fields in other research areas. Scrutinizing the actual expert review reports, Nilsson (2009) includes the field of literature studies as compared with physics and political science. Similarly, Hammarfelt (2017) explores the field of history in comparison with biomedicine and economics. Both of these studies show that humanities fields have less standardized notions of research quality and that metrics and proxy measures are rarely used to compare and rank candidates. The notion of quality that distinguishes the humanities fields from their counterparts elsewhere, then, is the practice of relying on a qualitative conception of quality and therefore on the professional judgement of the evaluator. The evident arbitrariness of professional judgement is explored at length by Ganuza and Salö (2023) , who show, analysing applied linguistics in Sweden, that the practical sense of expert evaluators tends to correspond with their own interests, positions and investment strategies within the field.

Recruitment procedures and their document trail comprise a fairly well studied entry point, which has provided ample information on academic values and virtues. It serves as an entry point with clearly articulated descriptions on how professional judgement is used to decide on the quality of an application. However, expert reports rarely reflect the opinions of more than a handful of individual scholars that make up the review committee (sometimes only one expert) and many other factors beyond research quality play into the final assessment, such as teaching or service to the university. The reports make up a particular genre where the decision has to be legitimized in hindsight for external review. Another limitation is the academic range; competitions for positions typically relate to a single discipline or field. Values that are shared by the humanities in the wider sense, and their impact on and contributions to society or even to a university, are rarely clearly articulated in assessment for recruitment. This is what one finds in the following entry point, here defined as field-type internal evaluations .

A source of rich empirical material for the study of research quality in the humanities is the fairly large body of collective evaluations from the last several decades. Further back, in the post-WWII decades, evaluations or reports in or from the humanities often took the purview of the nation, or, more grandiosely ‘civilization’ or ‘humanity’, like the Report of the Commission of the Humanities published in the United States in 1964 ( Keeney and Wells 1964 ). They certainly tell of ideals and grand visions of the study of humanities, but they rarely probe into the internal workings of the knowledge-providing institutions. The production of in-depth evaluative reports belongs largely in the neoliberal era and requires the kind of framing mindset of cost-efficient neoliberalism, reinforced by a sense of rational deliberation of resource allocation between academic fields and performing institutions. These evaluations started to appear in the 1980s; in Sweden, they first focused on scientific disciplines through the research councils. Somewhat later, entire universities opted to undertake evaluations, linked to the governments’ demand for strategy documents. This happened in the Nordic countries on a broad scale from the 1990s. Individual faculties and schools followed suit.

The humanities became the subject of such evaluations or strategic committees—two branches of the same tree—during the 1990s. To mention a few examples, in Sweden, Umeå University launched a report on their humanities faculty in 1999 ( Jonsson et al. 1999 ), the University of Gothenburg commissioned a committee of Nordic scholars to evaluate their large but sprawling (more than forty separate departments or divisions) faculty of humanities in 2000–01, and Lund University did a similar review in 2004 ( Sörlin et al. 2001 ; Jonsson et al. 2004 ). As university-wide external research assessment exercises became the norm in the following years, humanities reports typically came under scrutiny as part of these. At the same time, the conditions for the humanities as a whole were examined ( Geschwind and Larsson 2008 ). In addition, a research project on the future of humanities, funded by the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond foundation, was launched, largely to critically examine the widespread perception that research in the humanities was not only limited but also of poor quality ( Ekström and Sörlin 2012 ). 2 Other reports and studies on the humanities were undertaken in the period since the 1990s, also initiated by the government ( Forskningsberedningen 1997 ).

To conclude, these field-type internal evaluations contain plenty of information about the opinions of qualified scholars: the evaluators who express their views on a wide array of institutional arrangements and research products and results. These reports typically contain so much data from the inside of humanities departments that it would be difficult for any research project to repeat it. This data is also historical, in the sense that the evaluations represent an archive of past quality understandings of the kind that otherwise typically stay silent. In this way, field-type internal evaluations offer detailed, historical data on institutional practices and opinions, thus, preserving quality notions from within.

Another entry point is public debates and discussions on the humanities. Some of these discussions have already been the focus of recent studies on the general role or value of the humanities ( Small 2013 ; Holm, Jarrick and Scott 2015 ), yet we have not found any examples of studies that centre on research quality notions in these debates. While the humanities have been under-articulated within research policy discussions such as governmental research bills ( Ekström and Sörlin 2012 ), studies on the impact and public knowledge circulation of the humanities indicate that humanities scholars have nonetheless had a strong presence in public debates ( Hammar and Östling 2021 ; Salö, Sörlin and Benner 2021 ; Östling, Jansson and Svensson Stringberg 2022 ). A Swedish example is the fall 2005 debates on quality and the humanities in Sweden’s largest daily, the Dagens Nyheter , starting with the results of a bibliometric study illustrating a comparatively low performance of the Swedish humanities. 3

Humanities scholars engaging in these debates are often renowned, using their platform or authority to argue for their own claims about what research quality in the humanities is and how it should be obtained. For example, in Historisk Tidskrift , historian Jonas Nordin (2008) described how the journal had applied quality assurance through advisory boards of historians since its start in 1881, with the addition of double-blind peer review during the early 2000s. These forms of evaluation suited the journal well, Nordin argued, whereas the use of bibliometrics to determine the quality of historical research was the ‘worst type of charlatanry’ for a number of reasons: the methods were not adjusted for publishing patterns in the fields, yielding a false, simplified picture of what good and important research could be, while simultaneously replacing ‘qualitative criteria with quantitative ones’ (608).

In the study of field-type research quality notions, public debates serve as an entry point for understanding how humanities scholars have defended and promoted quality, in particular in response to external quality notions.

While peer review has emerged as the gold standard for quality assurance, it is not the sole—or even the primary—way for upholding scientific standards within the humanities. Another, often complementary, approach is the academic seminar, the history of which dates back to the first half of the eighteenth century ( Karlsohn 2016 ). The seminar is a well-established practice at research institutions of different disciplines, though the more exact meaning of a seminar is often more locally cultivated ( Cronqvist and Maurits 2016 ). In many Swedish humanities departments, the seminar is recognized as a well-developed internal quality evaluation system. Historian of ideas Henrik Björck, for example, identifies the seminar as an important aspect of collegiality, which he in turn describes as a robust and well-tried way of continuously assessing research quality ( Björck 2013 ). The quality assurance that takes place when drafts are scrutinized within the academic seminar, and according to its standards, is also, in some cases, expected to replace or prepare for other forms of peer review such as submitting manuscripts for blind peer review ( Hammarfelt, Hammar and Francke 2021 ). Humanities scholars tend to appreciate and observe the academic seminar culture with great care and it tends to rest on tacit, institutionally inherited knowledge.

The seminar should also be regarded as an important site of practice in the humanities, especially through negotiations of research quality and its transmission across generations of scholars. Its eminent position in many humanities’ quality cultures is explained by virtue of this fact. The seminar is not just an infrastructure, like a library or a database. It is more akin to the field station or the laboratory in the sciences: a collaborative space for experimentation and questioning, for refinement of argument and common and individual creativity. Humanities scholars conduct much of their work in solitude, silently reading, writing and reflecting in archives, in research libraries or in front of their computer screens. But the seminar is a place where they work and talk together. These collaborative practices are hard to separate from the norms; practices reflect and embody the norms and uphold them, disseminating them in real time to new arrivals. Through these practices, scholars can also question the norms when they (rarely) prove insufficient to serve the purpose of the enterprise.

Several seminars are held with the aim of providing a focus for discussion, study, and the exchange of ideas in the humanities. The seminars take different forms, but traditionally they have been conducted by guests invited to present material upon which they are working. Past seminar leaders have included Erich Auerbach, Hannah Arendt, W. H. Auden, Noam Chomsky, Roman Jakobson, Elaine Scarry, Joan Scott, and Raymond Bellour. Faculty and graduate students from Princeton University, the Institute for Advanced Study, and the community at large participate in each seminar. ( Princeton Humanities Council 2022 )

From this quote it must be assumed that there is really no need for quantitative or other forms of evaluation of the seminars. The names speak for themselves, although it is of course also true that Noam Chomsky belongs among the most highly cited scholars of all categories of all time ( Perez Vico et al. 2024 ). To mention it in this context, however, would be a faux pas , almost a blasphemy, and clearly a devaluation of the Gauss seminar as an institution. So, trust in reputation and nimbus may in fact be a defensible position to take in the humanities, whose quality cultures hence come across as less formalistic and precise.

To summarize, academic seminars play a crucial role in transferring and developing research quality notions of the humanities. They provide a recurring platform for peer evaluation of work-in-progress, while also facilitating collective discussions on what constitutes high-quality research. Seminars transmit both standards in between generations of scholars and more generally tacit knowledge on how to practice research quality in the humanities. Despite their centrality, seminars have not been a primary data source in many studies on quality notions, and could therefore contribute with fresh perspectives on quality from within.

In line with the seminar, supervision practices also tend to be based on tacit, institutionally inherited knowledge and understandings of quality notions. Supervision of PhDs, and postdocs, tends to be a prioritized activity where norms of research quality are constantly rehearsed and transmitted to new generations of practitioners, previously studied by ethnographic approaches ( Gerholm and Gerholm 1992 ; Ehn and Löfgren 2004 ), however, not explicitly as a source for field-type quality notions. These are quality-maintaining and -enhancing arenas and should be at least somewhat distinguished from the quality-controlling institutions of PhD examination and other formal arrangements to ensure that the final product of the PhD training has passed the quality bar ( Odén 1991 ).

Only recently has supervision of PhD students become more formalized and, since the 1990s, it has increasingly been the subject of both compulsory and voluntary regulation in humanities faculties and departments. Most universities demand that new supervisors take designated supervision courses and that they document and report their supervision in special forms in rich detail. There is also a growing instruction literature on supervision and on how to be a PhD student and ‘get the degree’ ( Phillips and Pugh 2005 ; Burman 2018 ). However, there is still a very small literature on the quality dimensions of supervision, and the same goes for the seminar. These tend to be protected spheres, not (yet) discovered as reform objects for explicit quality enhancement measures. Instead, the literature that does exist tends to emphasize the normative content of the quality culture—for historians, say, objectivity, completeness, truthfulness, context, nuance, representativeness, literary efficacy, etc—and disregard the institution and its rituals, which tend to be left to local custom ( Bergenheim and Ågren 2008 ).

As graduate training has become normalized and, especially in the Nordic countries, costly with salaried PhDs, it has also become a subject of interest to the government and others. External bodies want more PhDs, hired for particular purposes, and they want them delivered at a certain pace, making passage time a critical issue. This has been widely debated, and descriptions of the quite rapid transition of PhD training from an exclusively obscure academic enterprise into a major concern for industrial innovation and regional development can be found many places (see e.g. McCulloch 2022 ). Some of these changes apply in the humanities as well: formalized and frequent reporting, external monitoring of progress, pluralist supervisory teams rather than individual senior professors. However, some of these demands are less heavy on the humanities, which probably means that in humanities fields the supervision situation likely still reflects internal professional norms of research quality to a very high degree.

Similar to academic seminars, supervision relies on tacit and institutionally inherited knowledge to uphold and transmit research quality notions from within, by repeatedly reinforcing and transmitting research quality notions to new generations of scholars. As compared to more formal aspects of PhD examination, supervision is focused on the continuous development and transmission of how to convey research quality within PhD training. PhD supervision provides a rich, yet underexplored, domain for studying quality notions from within. It offers insights into how quality is practiced, transmitted and adapted over time in the specific quality culture it is carried out in.

In most disciplinary journals, there is a book review section, with implicit clues or explicit statements on what research quality in the particular field is or ought to be. Various forms of peer reviewing of books have been noted as a quality-ensuring practice, particularly important within the humanities, especially those disciplines that have a strong tradition of monograph publication ( Hammarfelt, Hammar and Francke 2021 ). In previous literature on book reviews and quality, more general aspects are addressed, such as the practices of (double) blind peer review or the editorial function of scholars working as ‘gatekeepers’ ( Hamann and Beljean 2017 ; Foss Hansen 2022 ). Book reviews, however, tend not to assess quality on any other level than that of the published book. They very rarely relate the quality of the book to the performance of the research environment or the institution. It is the work of the author or authors (or editor/s) that is up for scrutiny. Book reviews tend to spend little energy on quantitative measurements. What book reviews do, though, is show the repertoire of virtues and skills (and their opposites, vices and sloppiness) of the profession or disciplinary practice of which the journal is part and is also committed to sustain. Book reviews therefore tend to serve as the continuation into print of the professional virtues and skills that originate in the seminar room or in the supervision or mentoring of young scholars by senior members of the academic community, linking epistemic virtues and the character of the author ( ten Hagen 2022 ; Paul 2022b ). The cultural section book reviews in the daily press, an institution that developed significantly during the twentieth century, also contributes to setting and upholding standards of the humanities to an extent that is unique and pertains to no other research field. This situation has ramifications for the outreach and ‘impact’ dimensions of humanities, as made evident through studies on public media reviews ( Östling 2020 ; for the wider public role of the academic popular book, see Mandler (2019) and Östling, Jansson and Svensson Stringberg (2022 , chapter 3).

Book reviews provide an entry point for understanding quality notions from within, as they make both implicit and explicit statements about what constitutes quality and how they are communicated within a field. With the tradition of publishing results in monographs being particularly strong in the humanities, they offer a form of quality-assurance through the evaluation of published work. Additionally, book reviews focus on the quality notions of particular books or individual authors, rather than the larger research environment they might belong to. This enables highlighting professional skills and virtues of the field that are essential for the practice of field-type research quality notions.

Some scholars write their memoirs, usually at the end of a long career. This may be as a way of ‘balancing the books’ or manifesting an oeuvre that may have been significant but not so easy for the wider public to notice, let alone understand or appreciate. As these statements tend to come from scholars at the end of a long career, they tend to give way to certain understandings of quality notions represented in memoirs. Memoirs, after all, are written by people who believe that they have something important to say and who, usually, have had overall success in the system. The academic memoir literature thus mostly consists of works by those who stayed in academia for longer parts of their careers, which is why the genre provides unique insights to understand the emergence of field-type quality notions.

Statements on the past, written in the author’s present, can be used in order to understand quality and evaluation from a longer perspective, also considering how the practices of evaluation might relate to personal experiences in general. This is how we understand the academic memoir as a way to grasp a lifelong quality trajectory. Memoirs give insight into how the scholar remembers situations where research quality notions were negotiated. As opposed to an interview, where specific questions are posed and responded to, the content of the memoir is primarily created by the authoring scholar.

Additionally, memoirs often give thorough descriptions of the emotional aspects of evaluative situations, an aspect typically overlooked in studies on research evaluation. The interconnection, for example, is visible in the title of the historian Rolf Torstendahl’s (2011) memoirs, Done, Thought, Felt , and studies on academic work have pointed to the central role of emotions ( Ehn and Löfgren 2004 , 2007 ; Bloch 2012 ).

Making use of this of material, which usually was not consciously composed as a way to discuss or defend certain quality notions within a field, we get to learn more about how quality has been practised from within and how humanities scholars have understood changes in quality cultures on a biographical level.

Similar to the academic memoir is the tradition of Festschrift , or ‘essays in honour of’, ‘essays presented to’. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the term ‘Festschrift’ was used particularly for honouring scholars in the humanities and the physical sciences ( Horowitz 1991 ). Typically compiled to celebrate an academic’s career, often in conjunction with a milestone birthday or retirement, a Festschrift includes contributions from colleagues and former doctoral students who have worked closely with the scholar. For a scholar with wide social networks, contributions may also come from non-academics, for example in government, business, culture or other relevant sectors.

The Festschrift serves to acknowledge the impact and quality of an individual’s work within a field, usually contributing in an outstanding way to discoveries or enabling networks. It highlights the virtues of the scholar honoured, and the tradition of the Festschrift has previously been described as a ‘recognition of a set of insights which are deemed of sufficient protean quality as to merit recollection or celebration’ ( Horowitz 1991 : 236). With the Festschrift, quality notions from within the field/s that the researcher has been contributing to are presented and further communicated. This means that the Festschrift serves as a useful entry point for understanding the entanglement of an academic biography and the scholarly networks. An important aspect is also the fact that far from everyone gets a Festschrift—rather, it is a reward to those who have made outstanding contributions or have held certain positions.

Related to the celebration at a birthday or other special occasion, there are also collected volumes published when a successful academic has passed, a Festschrift in memoriam to pay tribute to a scholar, drawing on the same principle. There is, however, of course a significant difference in writing for the living to consecrating someone’s life trajectory in hindsight. The in-memoriam Festschrift relates to the evaluation that takes place in an obituary, which has been previously studied by Hamann (2016) . Here, the academic life biography consolidates into a linear trajectory, very similar to the CV as an evaluative procedure. The obituary is of course written by somebody else, aiming to describe the ‘messy’ life of a scholar as a legitimate research career. This also means that the authors of the obituaries are, like the authors of the Festschrift, following a set of informal rules in order to describe a biography that follows a life trajectory of quality. This is how obituaries can work as an entry point to study quality notions from within.

Academic memoirs, obituaries and Festschriften offer valuable insights into quality notions from within the humanities through personal and professionally moulded reflections. These provide a rich source of qualitative data showcasing how scholars have perceived and narrated the changes in norms and practices throughout their careers and how quality notions have been negotiated and institutionalized over time. If utilized with regards to their limitations, academic memoirs, obituaries and Festschriften can provide ample evidence for how field-type quality notions have developed over time, in particular with regards to how they have been perceived to impact academic life trajectories, practices and communities.

By identifying and analysing a number of empirical entry points where it is possible to discern field-type quality notions of the humanities, we have drawn a map—or, at least provided some pointers—for future possible studies on the emergence of research quality notions within the humanities. Following our entry points, future research on this topic will enable an understanding of quality based on rich, context-based empirical materials.

Myths and anecdotes on quality notions in the humanities are commonplace and often idealized or derogatory, which is why it will be helpful to compare these descriptions with sound and solid evidence of how humanities scholars have argued and practised quality notions ‘from within’. We have provided some examples of how this work could be carried out with the help of observations, mostly from Sweden. Through our compilation of possible entry points, we have illustrated what sort of empirical material is lacking in the discussions on research evaluation and suggested how this material could contribute to broadening our understanding of field-type research quality notions and research quality more generally. This also brings insights into the marginalization of the humanities in research policy and evaluation discourse by pointing out some of the missing empirical material and processes in these discussions.

These are challenging empirical questions which require in-depth research. We need to dig deeper into the seminar and the supervision as ‘sites of quality’, or ‘proof-spots’, to paraphrase Thomas Gieryn’s (2018) concept, ‘truth-spots’. Notably, our account has not been geared to outlining a methodological agenda; that is, an account on how to explore each identified entry points empirically. Each entry point will probably require its own procedure or even call for a mixed methods approach. For example, because present-day quality regimes are recent enough for senior scholars to recall those that preceded them, interview accounts provide a window not only into contemporary field-type quality notions but also into their progressions of change (e.g. Lucas 2006 ; Salö 2017 ). It will thus be inevitable to collect qualitative evidence by asking academics about their experiences of practices such as seminars and supervision. This should be supplemented by gathering data about output but also about hiring procedures, promotions, finances and other areas pertaining to the quality of the wider intellectual environment of which the seminar is part. This may in some instances require field studies, ethnographies or other forms of deeper inquiries into humanities institutions. These may resemble the laboratory life tradition of STS studies of experimental sciences (e.g. Latour and Woolgar 1979 ; Knorr Cetina 1981 , 1999 ; Traweek 1988 ; Rabinow 1996 ), but they would not be primarily on the epistemological questions of the nature and formation of scientific knowledge. Instead, fieldwork into the quality cultures of the humanities should be driven by the need to understand how humanities sites of practice function as spaces of establishing and negotiating standards of quality. This may hinge on profound epistemological and ontological questions, but the main purpose would be to enrich our understanding of quality from within.

To summarize our entry points, we describe how academic seminars emphasize the transmission of implicit, culturally embedded quality norms within a disciplinary community. Supervision practices, while increasingly formalized, continue to uphold and instill these norms through close mentorship and academic traditions. Book reviews offer both explicit and implicit descriptions of field-type quality notions, and particularly reflect the publishing patterns of many humanities disciplines with traditions of publishing findings in monographs rather than articles. Book reviews also offer insights to how research quality notions are transmitted to public debates, for example through reviews of research in journals intended for not an exclusively academic audience. Similarly, public debates offer an entry point to how humanities scholars have defended and promoted discipline-specific criteria of quality.

Another entry point suggested in this article is recruitment procedures, which can offer detailed insights into how the evaluative group have reasoned around quality notions. Also, field-type internal evaluations offer an entry point to understand how faculty members as well as PhD students reason about quality notions in their institutional environment, and these can also serve as data to understand the historical developments of research quality notions on the institutional level.

Reflections on research quality notions deriving from what we have labelled as academic life histories are accessible through interviews, but also memoirs, obituaries and Festschriften. By analysing these personal narratives, it is possible to trace quality notions and their impact on academic life histories over longer time periods.

By emphasizing the value of broadening the scope of empirical material, the entry points identified also carry implications for the study of research quality across various fields. For instance, PhD training and academic memoirs would serve as highly relevant, albeit currently overlooked, entry points to field-type research quality notions and could also be used for comparing practices across fields. They also invite exploration of additional entry points in certain fields, such as the natural, technical or social sciences, and how and why these have changed over time.

In summary, we have identified and critically examined several inroads to the study of field-type quality notions. We have outlined how an empirically grounded research agenda around this object can be fruitfully pursued, offering perspectives rooted within the humanities. We believe that these entry points—individually or jointly implemented—can provide much-needed insight into quality from within .

This work was supported by Vinnova, the Swedish innovation agency, through the project Making Universities Matter (2015–23), Grant Number 2019–03679, and by the Research Council of Norway, Grant Number 256223 (the Centre for Research Quality and Policy Impact Studies, R-QUEST) (2018–25).

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

However, it should be noted that in recent years (the most recent data covering the period 2019 to 2021), this general perception of both low R&D intensity and a low level of performance has been contrasted by the fact that Swedish humanities research has scored high in bibliometric surveys of publication impact, and is now at the very top among all research fields in Sweden. It is a quite remarkable contrast to past performance and the reasons have not yet been thoroughly analyzed, although they may be the result of responsiveness in the humanities to incentives towards international journal publication in combination with a general weakening of impact figures in most other Swedish research fields ( Swedish Research Council (VR) 2023 : 78–80).

Participating researchers came from several universities and institutes. A report from the project was Humanisterna och framtidssamhället , edited by Ekström and Sörlin (2011) . The gist of this project was a critique of the still widespread ‘crisis’ trope in the understanding of humanities. On its roots, see Plumb (1964) and more recent studies, e.g. Östh Gustafsson (2022) ; Reitter and Wellmon (2021) .

Examples of similar debates close in time are those in Historisk tidskrift (history) in 2008 , Kulturella perspektiv (ethnology) and interdisciplinary humanities journals such as Glänta (2005) . Additional debates have previously been described by Tunlid (2008 , 2022 ).

Baldwin M. ( 2018 ) ‘ Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States ’, Isis , 109 : 538 – 58 .

Google Scholar

Benner M. ( 2011 ) ‘In Search of Excellence? An International Perspective on Governance of University Research’, in Göransson B. , Brundenius C. (eds) Universities in Transition: The Changing Role and Challenges for Academic Institutions , pp. 11 – 24 . Ottawa : Springer .

Google Preview

Benner M. , M. Holmqvist , eds ( 2023 ) Universities under Neoliberalism: Ideologies, Discourses and Management Practices . New York : Routledge .

Benneworth P. , Gulbrandsen M. , Hazelkorn E. ( 2016 ) The Impact and Future of Arts and Humanities Research . Palgrave Macmillan .

Bergenheim Å. , K. Ågren , eds ( 2008 ) Forskarhandledares robusta råd . Lund : Studentlitteratur .

Björck Henrik ( 2013 ) Om kollegialitet . Stockholm : Sveriges Universitetslärarförbund .

Bloch Charlotte ( 2012 ) Passion and Paranoia: Emotions and the Culture of Emotion in Academia . Abingdon, UK : Taylor & Francis Group .

Bod R. , Kursell J. , Maat J. , Weststeijn T. ( 2016 ) ‘ A New Field: History of Humanities ’, History of Humanities , 1 : 1 – 8 .

Budtz Pedersen D. , Følsgaard Grønvad J. , Hvidtfeldt R. ( 2020 ) ‘ Methods for Mapping the Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities—A Literature Review ’, Research Evaluation , 29 : 4 – 21 .

Burman Åsa. ( 2018 ) The Doctoral Student Handbook: Master Effectiveness, Reduce Stress: Finish on Time . Stockholm : Finish on Time Publications .

Cronqvist M. , Maurits A. ( 2016 ) Det goda seminariet: Forskarseminariet som lärandemiljö och kollegialt rum [The Good Seminar: The Research Seminar as a Learning Environment and Collegial Space]. Göteborg : Makadam .

Dahler-Larsen Peter ( 2019 ) Quality: From Plato to Performance . Palgrave Macmillan

Ehn B. , Löfgren O. ( 2004 ) Hur blir man klok på universitetet? Lund : Studentlitteratur .

Ehn B. , Löfgren O. ( 2007 ) ‘Emotions in Academia’, in: Wulff H. (ed.) The Emotions: A Cultural Reader . Oxford, UK : Berg Publishers .

Ekström A. , Östh Gustafsson H. ( 2022 ) ‘Introduction: Politics of Knowledge and the Modern History of the Humanities’, In: Ekström A. Östh Gustafsson H. (eds) The Humanities and the Modern Politics of Knowledge: The Impact and Organization of the Humanities in Sweden, 1850-2020 , pp. 7 – 35 . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press .

Ekström A. , Sörlin S. ( 2011 ) Humanisterna och framtidssamhället [The Humanists and the Future Society]. Stockholm : Institutet för framtidsstudier .

Ekström A. , Sörlin S. ( 2012 ) Alltings mått: Humanistisk kunskap i framtidens samhälle [Man is the Measure of All Things: Humanities Knowledge in the Future Society] . Stockholm : Norstedts .

Ekström A. , Sörlin S. ( 2022 ) ‘The Integrative Humanities—and the Third Research Policy Regime’, in: Benner M. , Marklund G. , Schwaag Serger S. (eds) Smart Policies for Societies in Transition , pp. 189 – 212 . Cheltenham Northampton : Edward Elgar Publishing .

Elvebakk B. , Enebakk V. ( 2006 ) ‘Kunnskapsløst kunnskapsløft’, in: Hagen E. B. , Johansen A. (eds) Hva skal vi med vitenskap? 13 innlegg fra striden om tellekantene . Oslo : Universitetsforlaget .

Engwall L. , Edlund P. , Wedlin L. ( 2023 ) ‘ Who Is to Blame? Evaluations in Academia Spreading through Relationships among Multiple Actor Types ’, Social Science Information , 61 : 439 – 56 .

Forsberg E. , Geschwind, L., Levander, S. and Wermke, W. ( 2022 ) Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation: Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia . Cham : Palgrave Macmillan .

Forskningsberedningen ( 1997 ) Röster om humaniora [Voices on the humanities] . Stockholm : Utbildningsdepartementet .

Foss Hansen H. ( 2022 ) ‘The Many Faces of Peer Review’, in: Forsberg E. , Geschwind L. , Levander S. , Wermke W. (eds) Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation: Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia , pp. 107 – 26 . Cham : Palgrave Macmillan .

Franssen T. , Wouters P. ( 2019 ) ‘ Science and Its Significant Other: Representing the Humanities in Bibliometric Scholarship ’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 70 : 1124 – 37 .

Ganuza N. , Salö L. ( 2023 ) ‘ Boundary-Work and Social Closure in Academic Recruitment: Insights from the Transdisciplinary Subject Area Swedish as a Second Language ’, Research Evaluation , 32 : 515 – 25 .

Gerholm L. , Gerholm T. ( 1992 ) Doktorshatten: en studie av forskarutbildningen inom sex discipliner vid Stockholms universitet [Doktorshatten: A Study of Doctoral Education in Six Disciplines at Stockholm University]. Stockholm : Carlsson .

Geschwind L. and Larsson, K. ( 2008 ) Om humanistisk forskning: Nutida villkor och framtida förutsättningar [On Humanities Research: Current Conditions and Future Prospects] 81 . Stockholm : SISTER .

Gieryn Thomas F. ( 2018 ) Truth-Spots: How Places Make People Believe . Chicago : The University of Chicago Press .

Glänta ( 2005 ) ‘ Humaniora ’, 2005 : 1 – 2 .

Guillory J. ( 2005 ) ‘ Valuing the Humanities, Evaluating Scholarship ’, Profession , 2005 : 28 – 38 .

Gunvik-Grönbladh Ingegerd ( 2014 ) Att bli bemött och att bemöta. En studie om meritering i tillsättning av lektorat vid Uppsala universitet [To Be Recognised and to Recognise. A Study on Merit in the Appointment of Lectureships at Uppsala University] . Uppsala : Uppsala University .

Hamann J. ( 2016 ) ‘“ Let Us Salute One of Our Kind.” How Academic Obituaries Consecrate Research Biographies ’, Poetics , 56 : 1 – 14 .

Hamann J. ( 2019 ) ‘ The Making of Professors. Assessment and Recognition in Academic Recruitment ’, Social Studies of Science , 49 : 919 – 41 .

Hamann J. , Beljean S. ( 2017 ) ‘Academic Evaluation in Higher Education’, in: Shin J. , Teixeira P. (eds) Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions . Dordrecht : Springer .

Hamann J. , Kaltenbrunner W. ( 2022 ) ‘ Biographical Representation, from Narrative to List: The Evolution of Curricula Vitae in the Humanities, 1950 to 2010 ’, Research Evaluation , 31 : 438 – 51 .

Hammar I. , Östling J. ( 2021 ) ‘ Introduction: The Circulation of Knowledge and the History Of Humanities ’, History of Humanities , 6 : 595 – 602 .

Hammarfelt B. , de Rijcke S. ( 2015 ) ‘ Accountability in Context: effects of Research Evaluation Systems on Publication Practices, Disciplinary Norms, and Individual Working Routines in the Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University ’, Research Evaluation , 24 : 63 – 77 .

Hammarfelt B. ( 2014 ) ‘ Using Altmetrics for Assessing Research Impact in the Humanities ’, Scientometrics , 101 : 1419 – 30 .

Hammarfelt B. ( 2016 ) ‘Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities’, in: Ochsner M. , Hug S. E. , Daniel H. (eds) Research Assessment in the Humanities: Towards Criteria and Procedures , pp. 115 – 31 . Cham : Springer International Publishing .

Hammarfelt B. ( 2017 ) ‘ Recognition and Reward in the Academy. Valuing Publication Oeuvres in Biomedicine, Economics and History ’, Aslib Journal of Information Management , 69 : 607 – 23 .

Hammarfelt B. , Hammar I. , Francke H. ( 2021 ) ‘ Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH ’, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics , 6 : 740297 .

Hammarfelt B. , Rushforth A. D. , de Rijcke S. ( 2020 ) ‘ Temporality in Academic Evaluation: “Trajectoral Thinking” ’, The Assessment of Biomedical Researchers’, Valuation Studies , 7 : 33 – 63 .

Holm P. , Jarrick A. , Scott D. ( 2015 ) Humanities World Report 2015 . Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan .

Horowitz Irving Louis ( 1991 ) Communicating Ideas: The Politics of Scholarly Publishing , 2nd edn. Abingdon : Routledge .

Hug S. , Ochsner M. ( 2014 ) ‘ A Framework to Explore and Develop Criteria for Assessing Research Quality in the Humanities ’, International Journal of Education Law and Policy , 10 : 55 – 68 .

Hug S. , Ochsner M. , Daniel H. D. ( 2013 ) ‘ Criteria for Assessing Research Quality in the Humanities: A Delphi Study among Scholars of English Literature, German Literature and Art History ’, Research Evaluation , 22 : 369 – 83 .

Ingold T. ( 2000 ) The Perception of the Environment. Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill . Routledge .

Jonsson I., Edlund, L. E, Holm, E., Janlert, L. E, Lundgren, B., Puranen, P., Sörlin, S. and Sedlacek, P. ( 1999 ) Utredning om humanistisk forskning och utbildning vid Umeå universitet [Report on Humanities Research and Education at Umeå University]. Umeå : Umeå universitet .

Jonsson I. , Ahlsén, E., Björkstrand, G. and Karlsson, F. ( 2004 ) Rapport om resultat av en utvärdering av forskning och forskarutbildning inom området för humaniora och teologi vid Lunds universitet [Report on the results of an evaluation of research and postgraduate education in the field of humanities and theology at Lund University] . Lund: Lunds universitet.

Karlsohn T. ( 2016 ) ‘ The Academic Seminar as Emotional Community ’, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy , 2016 : 33724 – 3 .

Keeney C. B and Wells, B. H. ( 1964 ) Report of The Commission of the Humanities . New York : The American Council of Learned Societies .

Knorr Cetina Karin ( 1981 ) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science . Oxford : Pergamon Press .

Knorr Cetina Karin ( 1999 ) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Krämer F. ( 2018 ) ‘ Shifting Demarcations: An Introduction ’, History of Humanities , 3 : 5 – 14 .

Lamont Michèle ( 2009 ) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Langfeldt L. , Nedeva M. , Sörlin S. , Thomas D. A. ( 2020 ) ‘ Co-Existing Notions of Research Quality: A Framework to Study Context-Specific Understandings of Good Research ’, Minerva , 58 : 115 – 37 .

Larsson S. ( 2009 ) ‘ An Emerging Economy of Publications and Citations ’, Nordisk Pedagogik , 29 : 34 – 52 .

Latour B. , Woolgar S. ( 1979 ) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .

Lucas Lisa ( 2006 ) The Research Game in Academic Life . Berkshire : Open University Press .

Mandler P. ( 2019 ) ‘ Good Reading for the Million: The “Paperback Revolution” and the Co-Production of Academic Knowledge in Mid Twentieth-Century Britain and America ’, Past & Present , 244 : 235 – 69 .

McCulloch A. ( 2022 ) In Defence of History—The Changing Context for Supervision < https://supervisingphds.wordpress.com/2022/01/11/in-defence-of-history-the-changing-context-for-supervision/ > accessed 23 Aug 2022.

Müller K. ( 2024 ) ‘Responsive Research Quality Articulations of the Humanities’, in: Mattsson P. , Perez Vico E. , Salö L. (eds) Making Universities Matter: Collaboration, Engagement, Impact , pp. 165 – 84 . Springer .

Nästesjö J. ( 2021 ) ‘ Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices ’, Minerva , 59 : 237 – 59 .

Nilsson Rangnar ( 2009 ) God vetenskap—hur forskares vetenskapsuppfattningar uttryckta i sakkunnigutlåtanden förändras i tre skilda discipliner . Gothenburg: Gothenburg Studies in the History of Science and Ideas.

Nordin J. ( 2008 ) ‘ Historisk tidskrift i nutid och framtid: Några reflektioner över läsarsynpunkter, bibliometri och open access ’, Historisk tidskrift , 128 : 601 – 20 .

Nylander E. , Aman R. , Hallqvist A. , Malmquist A. , Sandberg F. ( 2013 ) ‘ Managing by Measuring: Academic Knowledge Production under the Ranks ’, Confero: Essays on Education Philosophy and Politics , 1 : 5 – 18 .

Ochsner M. , Galleron I. , Ionescu A. ( 2017a ) List of Projects on SSH Scholars’ Notions of Research Quality in Participating Countries < http://enressh.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Report_Quality_Projects.pdf > accessed 5 Apr 2023.

Ochsner M. , Hug S. , Galleron I. ( 2017b ) ‘ The Future of Research Assessment in the Humanities: Bottom-Up Assessment Procedures ’, Palgrave Communications , 3 : 1 – 12 .

Ochsner M. , Hug S. , Daniel H. D. eds ( 2016 ) Research Assessment in the Humanities: Towards Criteria and Procedures . Springer International Publishing .

Odén Birgitta ( 1991 ) Forskarutbildningens förändringar 1890-1975: historia, statskunskap, kulturgeografi, ekonomisk historia [Changes in Postgraduate Studies, 1890-1975]. Lund : Lund University Press .

Östh Gustafsson H. ( 2022 ) ‘The Humanities in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives on a Recurring Motif’, in Paul H. (ed.) Writing the History of the Humanities: Questions, Themes and Approaches , pp. 65 – 83 . London : Bloomsbury Academic .

Östling J. ( 2020 ) ‘ En kunskapsarena och dess aktörer: Under strecket och kunskapscirkulation i 1960-talets offentlighet ’, Historisk Tidskrift , 140 : 95 – 124 .

Östling J. , Jansson A. , Svensson Stringberg R. ( 2022 ) Humanister i offentligheten: Kunskapens aktörer och arenor under efterkrigstiden . Göteborg : Makadam .

Paul Herman ( 2022a ) Writing the History of the Humanities: Questions, Themes, and Approaches . London : Bloomsbury Academic .

Paul Herman ( 2022b ) Historians' Virtues: From Antiquity to the Twenty-First Century . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Perez Vico E. , Sörlin S. , Hanell L. , Salö L. ( 2024 ) ‘Valorizing the Humanities: Impact Spaces, Acting Spaces, and Meandering Knowledge Flows’, in Mattsson P. , Perez Vico E. , Salö L. (eds) Making Universities Matter: Collaboration, Engagement, Impact , pp. 211 – 32 . Springer .

Phillips E. , Pugh D. ( 2005 ) How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors , 4th edn. Maidenhead : Open University Press .

Plumb J. H. , ed. ( 1964 ) Crisis in the Humanities . London : Penguin .

Princeton Humanities Council , History of the Seminars < https://humanities.princeton.edu/humanities-council-programs/public-lectures/gauss-seminars-in-criticism/history-of-the-gauss-seminars/ > accessed 23 Aug 2022.

Rabinow Paul. ( 1996 ) Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

Reitter P. , Wellmon C. ( 2021 ) Permanent Crisis: The Humanities in a Disenchanted Age . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

Riis U. , Hartman T. , Levander S. ( 2011 ) Darr på ribban—En uppföljning av 1999 års befordringsreform vid Uppsala universitet . Uppsala : Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis .

Salö L. ( 2017 ) The Sociolinguistics of Academic Publishing: Language and the Practices of Homo Academicus . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Salö L. , Sörlin S. , Benner M. ( 2021 ) ‘Humanvetenskapernas kunskapspolitik: En inledning’, in Salö Linus (ed.) Humanvetenskapernas verkningar , pp. 9 – 34 . Stockholm : Dialogos Förlag .

Small Helen ( 2013 ) The Value of the Humanities . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Sörlin S. ( 2007 ) ‘ Funding Diversity: Performance-Based Funding Regimes as Drivers of Differentiation in Higher Education Systems ’, Higher Education Policy , 20 : 413 – 40 .

Sörlin S. ( 2018 ) ‘ Humanities of Transformation: From Crisis and Critique towards the Emerging Integrative Humanities ’, Research Evaluation , 27 : 287 – 97 .

Sörlin S., Johansson, S., Karlsson, F., Montgomery, H., Nordenstam, T. and Skafte Jensen, M. ( 2001 ) Den humanistiska cirkelns kvadratur: Om humanioras möjligheter och framtid: Rapport från Humanistiska fakultetsnämndens nordiska bedömargrupp. [Squaring the circle of humanities: On the possibilities and future of the humanities] . Gothenburg University: Faculty of the Humanities.

Swedish Research Council (VR) ( 2023 ) The Swedish Research Barometer 2023: Swedish Research in International Comparison .

ten Hagen S. ( 2022 ) ‘ Evaluating Knowledge, Evaluating Character: Book Reviewing by American Historians and Physicists (1900–1940) ’, History of Humanities , 7 : 251 – 77 .

Torstendahl Rolf ( 2011 ) Gjort, tänkt, känt. [Done, Thought, Felt] . Stockholm : Carlsson .

Traweek Sharon ( 1988 ) Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Tunlid A. ( 2008 ) Humanioras kris: Om självförståelse, samhällsrelevans och forskningspolitik [The crisis of the humanities: On self-awareness, social relevance and research policy] . Lund : Mer forskning för pengarna .

Tunlid A. ( 2022 ) ‘“Humanities 2000”: Legitimizing Discourses of the Humanities in Public Debate and Research Policy at the Turn of the Century’, in Ekström A. , Östh Gustafsson H. (eds) The Humanities and the Modern Politics of Knowledge: The Impact and Organization of the Humanities in Sweden, 1850-2020 , pp. 253 – 74 . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press .

Whitley R. ( 2007 ) ‘Changing Governance of the Public Sciences: The Consequences of Establishing Research Evaluation Systems for Knowledge Production in Different Countries and Scientific Fields’, in Whitley R. , Gläser J. (eds) The Changing Governance of the Sciences , pp. 3 – 27 . New York : Springer .

Widmalm S. ( 2013 ) ‘Innovation and Control: Performative Research Policy in Sweden’, in Rider S. , Hasselberg Y. , Waluszewski A. (eds) Transformations in Research, Higher Education and the Academic Market: The Breakdown of Scientific Thought , pp. 39 – 52 . New York : Springer .

Month:	Total Views:
August 2024	291

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1471-5449
Print ISSN 0958-2029
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Sara Chadwick – Information for Prospective Graduate Students

FAQs for Prospective PhD Students Interested in Working with Dr. Sara Chadwick

What type of research will a PhD student learn to conduct under Dr. Chadwick ’s supervision?

As a PhD student under my supervision, you will be trained in how to conduct research as a Feminist Psychologist . A feminist psychologist is a social scientist who conducts psychological research on feminist topics, using feminist methodologies. In my lab, this involves using surveys, interviews, focus groups, experiments, and sometimes other scientific approaches to gather empirical data from human participants. As such, in my lab, you will learn to ask meaningful research questions, design a scientific study to answer your questions, gather data from participants, analyze the data, and write research papers for publication in scientific journals.

If you are not sure what this looks like, please review the following research study I conducted on orgasm coercion .

Ask yourself: would you like to learn to conduct a research study like that? Would you like to spend a large portion of your time analyzing data and writing papers like that one? If the answer is yes, then great! Please continue reading. If the answer is no and/or you thought doing a PhD involved something else, that’s okay! There are many different types of research approaches out there, especially in Gender & Women’s Studies Departments. You should pursue another supervisor who does work that is more similar to what you are interested in doing.

What type of classes will a PhD student take under Dr. Chadwick ’s supervision?

In addition to hands-on research experience, you will complete rigorous coursework in Psychology AND Gender & Women’s Studies, regardless of whether you come to UW-Madison through the Psychology or Gender & Women’s Studies PhD program. Your training will include classes such as Feminist Theory, Social Psychology Theory, Research Methods, Grant Writing, Advanced Statistics, and sometimes Computer Programming. Some of these courses are very theory-heavy and humanities-based. Some are highly scientific and/or mathematical. All are essential to becoming an excellent, highly trained researcher in feminist psychology. As such, you should be prepared to engage in learning across both fields. It is okay if you feel that you are weaker in some of the above listed subjects than others as long as you are willing to engage with all of them in an effort to strengthen your interdisciplinary skills.

After reading the above, are you are still interested in doing a PhD with Dr. Chadwick ? If yes, great! Please keep reading!

What are the options for doing a PhD with Dr. Chadwick ?

At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, there are a few options for completing a PhD with me.

Option 1. The first option is that you can do a single-major (traditional) PhD through the Psychology PhD Program or through the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD Program. Through the Gender & Women’s Studies Program, you would be able to choose a concentration in either Psychology or Health. Note, if you are interesting in attending through the Psychology program, I only accept students who apply to the SOCIAL Psychology area. I am not a clinical psychologist and will not accept students who apply to work with me through Clinical Psychology.

Here is a link to the Psychology PhD program information: https://psych.wisc.edu/graduate-program/

Here is a link to the Gender and Women’s Studies PhD information: https://gws.wisc.edu/graduate/phd-program-in-gender-and-womens-studies/

Option 2. The second option is applying to complete a joint PhD in Gender & Women’s Studies and Psychology. This is a new option that I have developed here at UW-Madison, so if you would like to pursue this, it is imperative that you let me know in advance so that I can determine whether this option makes sense for your goals. Of note, to pursue this option you will be required to submit SEPARATE applications to both the Psychology and the GWS PhD programs.

What is the difference between the Psychology PhD Program or the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD Program?

Importantly, there are a few things to consider when deciding which program is the best fit for you. But first, you should know that I will train you in the same way regardless of which PhD program you are accepted through. I.e., you will be trained as a feminist psychologist doing the type of social science research that I do, with links to both the Social Psychology area and Gender & Women’s Studies here at UW-Madison. The difference will primarily be where your “home” department lies and which courses are required. However, I believe you will take many of the same courses regardless considering the overlap in the programs.

The other difference would be your future career prospects. One or the other might be better depending on what your future goals are. If you are interested in becoming a professor in a Psychology Department, the Psychology PhD might give you a better shot. But at the same time, doing feminist psychology is often considered to be non-traditional for most Psychology departments, and it is likely that you will end up in a different type of department anyway (i.e., one that values the quality of your work and/or your interdisciplinary focus more so than the name on your PhD). For example, after completing my PhD in Psychology and Women’s and Gender Studies, I was given opportunities to work in a Human and Family Development Department, an interdisciplinary Sexuality Studies Department, a Violence Against Women research group, Population and Public Health Departments, and a Gender & Women’s Studies Department. Traditional Psychology Departments were less interested.

With that said, the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD with a concentration in either Psychology or Health would make you more competitive for many interdisciplinary positions, and certainly for programs looking for feminist-oriented researchers. It might, however, make you even less competitive for a traditional Psychology department.

There is also the possibility that you are not interested in being a professor at all! That is totally fine, too! If you are interested in pursuing a career in industry, a PhD in either area could work for you, since it will be more so about the research skills that you develop. In the end, it is up to you which PhD program you apply to.

Do I have a better chance of getting into the Psychology PhD program or the Gender & Women’s Studies PhD program?

Both the Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies Programs are HIGHLY competitive. Each department can get hundreds of applications each year and we may only accept a few students. I cannot guarantee your acceptance to either program, regardless of how great of a candidate you are. Acceptance depends on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the competitiveness of your application, your fit for the program, your fit in my research lab, the types of students the department is looking for each year, and my availability and funding opportunities.

With that said, your chance on getting into the Psychology PhD program vs. the Gender & Women’s Studies program may vary from year to year. I am most likely to accept a student through the Gender & Women’s Studies program. I *might* be able to accept a student through the Psychology program. You are welcome to apply to either or both.

What is Dr. Chadwick looking for in a PhD student?

I am looking for PhD students who would like to be trained as feminist psychologists, who have research interests that overlap with mine, and who are likely to succeed in a PhD program that integrates Psychology and Gender and Women’s Studies. As such, your application and any initial communications with me should clearly state and provide evidence that:

1. You would like to complete a PhD with me because you would like to be trained as a feminist psychologist. I.e., it is important that you know and understand that doing this program with me as your supervisor means spending ~5 years learning to do scientific research that integrates feminist and psychological theories and methodologies. In other words, this is much like a job application. You should let me know that you understand what the job title is and that you are indeed interested in doing what the job entails. If I am not sure that you understand what it means to do a PhD with me, it is unlikely that I will support your application.

2. Your research interests overlap with mine. I am currently interested in studying gray-area sexual coercion, orgasm coercion, gender roles, the heteronormativity theory of sexual desire, health outcomes, and often gender/sexual minority populations. If you do a PhD with me, you will likely start by helping me with my research studies as you develop research skills, so it is important that you are interested in and willing to do this work. Eventually, you will develop your own ideas, and it is okay if they are tangential to mine. But, I will likely require that they be somewhat related so that I can best advise you and we can engage in a mutually beneficial research partnership. Of note, it is not enough just to say you are interested in the above topics. To be as competitive as possible, you should clarify: What exactly interests you about these topics? What research questions might you ask that are related to these topics? What ideas do you have for expanding upon some of the studies I have done?

Please note that I have published some work on topics that I am no longer pursuing. For example, I am not planning to conduct additional research on pornography or hormones and am unlikely to take a student who is primarily interested in these subjects.

3. You are likely to succeed at completing a social science PhD that involves Psychology and Gender and Women’s Studies. The best way to show that you are likely to succeed is to demonstrate how your previous experience has well-prepared you to do this PhD. For example, you should have an undergraduate major and/or a Master’s level degree (though a Master’s degree is not required) in Psychology or a closely related social science (that you could easily argue has prepared you to do psychological research).

You should also have some experience working in a social science lab as a research assistant (volunteer or paid) and/or lab coordinator. This ensures that you have familiarity with the scientific method, the research process, and some basic research skills. Additionally, having written a senior thesis in Psychology, being a first or co-author on a manuscript, and/or having presented or been accepted to present at a conference will make you especially competitive. Note that if you have never worked in a research lab before or done any type of social science research, I am not likely to accept you. If this is the case for you, I recommend that you contact labs near you and try to obtain a volunteer or research assistant position and then re-applying to PhD programs once you have at least 1-2 years of experience.

It is also a benefit if you can demonstrate some experience with data collection and analyses. I am a mixed method researcher, thus I am interested in students who have experience developing surveys, coding data, and/or conducting interviews or focus groups. Quantitative and/or qualitative experience with software such as SPSS, R, NVivo, Stata, MPlus is a plus.

In addition to the requirements above, it is a benefit that you have some experience with Gender and Women’s Studies topics. It is ideal if you have taken relevant classes or have a relevant major or minor. It may also be acceptable if you are just deeply invested in social justice topics, and have demonstrated experience with this (for example, you wrote undergrad papers that involved a feminist or gendered lens, you have relevant volunteer or job experiences, you have relevant lived/personal community experiences, etc.).

Finally, you should have strong letters of recommendation from professors you have studied with or worked with in the past. Ideally, you will have at least one professor who can attest to your previous research experience and the skills that you can bring to the table as a part of the PhD program.

Ok, everything above sounds good! What should you do next?

If after reading all of the above, you are still confident that you would like to apply to either the Psychology or Gender & Women’s Studies PhD Program with me as your primary supervisor, then great! I’m thrilled that you are interested in working with me!

The next step is to email me to communicate that you are still interested and that you have read and understood everything in this document. If you already emailed me with some of this information, then great, you are on the right track! However, it is likely you did not include information on everything, and it would probably be helpful for me to know more.

As such, in your email, please clarify the following:

That you understand what a feminist psychologist is/does and that you would like to get a PhD with me because you are interested in becoming a feminist psychologist.
That you are committed to taking Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies courses, regardless of whether you work with me through the Psychology or Gender & Women’s Studies program.
Which program you are planning to apply to.
Your research interests and how they overlap with mine.
A brief description of your qualifications and previous research experience.
An updated CV.

Note, sending me this information will allow me to best evaluate your fit for working with me. Due to a high volume of interest, I may not be able to respond to you, but be assured that I have read your email and am taking note of potentially strong applications. Again, I cannot guarantee anyone’s acceptance into either program, but I may be able to advocate for students I think are especially competitive. With that said, you do not HAVE to email me the requested information, but doing so will increase the chance that I will agree to become your supervisor upon acceptance.

Finally, the last step is to complete the official application through the UW-Madison website! Please make sure to submit your strongest materials and to really make your writing and stated interests shine! I look forward to potentially working with you!

Dr. Sara B. Chadwick

Share on twitter
Share on facebook

Junior researchers ‘cited more if PhD supervisor is well known’

Success of those mentored by highly regarded scholars suggests ‘chaperone effect’ is increasingly important, finds study.

Share on linkedin
Share on mail

Three women in vintage 1920s attire dancing at a Gatsby-themed celebration.

Early career researchers are much more likely to see their work cited if their PhD supervisors are well-known academics, according to a major study that suggests scholarly success is increasingly dependent on the status of one’s mentor.

In a paper published in the Royal Society journal Interface on 14 August, researchers survey the “academic genealogy” of more than 300,000 academics who published nearly 10 million papers to work out if the PhD graduates of highly cited authors are more widely cited than those whose mentors had a lower academic reputation – a phenomenon that has often been attributed to the “chaperone effect”.

A positive correlation – which the paper labelled the “academic Great Gatsby Curve” in reference to the term used in social sciences to describe the persistence of intergenerational income inequality – was observed in nearly all 22 disciplines analysed but was strongest in philosophy, mathematics and linguistics.

Political science, computing and anthropology also have high levels of “impact inequality”, states the paper, with the “most egalitarian citation distribution” found in experimental psychology, microbiology and evolutionary biology.

The “impact persistence” between PhD mentors and mentees was slightly higher if the supervisor was female, the researchers note, suggesting that this is “possibly owing to female mentors having a lasting positive impact on mentees or providing career development facilitation to a larger extent than male mentors”.

On the growing importance of having a well-known “academic parent”, the study suggests that “academia has become less open and more stratified over time, as newer protégé cohorts are characterised by lower intergenerational mobility than their predecessors”.

While the paper, which examines whether the citations gained by scholars in the five years after their PhD aligned with the citation profile of supervisors, accepts that “more successful mentors may have the privilege of being more selective in their choice of mentees, and vice versa, leading to a positive correlation between their impact”, it also argues that PhD students of well-known scholars are able to benefit from more networking opportunities.

“The transfer of academic status is instead grounded upon the inheritance of intangibles such as knowledge and visibility,” it says.

Given how “academic impact – as quantified by citations – is to some extent inherited”, the authors advise that “citation-based bibliometric indicators should be handled with care when used to assess the performance of academics”.

[email protected]

Register to continue

Why register?

Registration is free and only takes a moment
Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
Digital editions
Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Doorman at Oxford University to illustrate Elites won’t fix inequality

Obsession with elites won’t fix inequality

Addressing extreme social stratification is a responsibility of all universities. But focusing excessively on action at the top of the pile is a mistake

Varna, Bulgaria - September, 06, 2020 street drummer playing in the park with improvised means

Embed impact in PhD training from day one, says UCL doctoral head

Head of UK’s biggest PhD school says promoting impact in doctoral studies would make students more employable and research more visible

Competitors take part in the Men’s Veterans’ Race at the annual World Coal Carrying Championships to illustrate PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

PhDs for everyone will not improve academia

Ever-expanding numbers of doctoral students may suit universities, but one’s twenties should be a time for broad learning and professional development, not for burying oneself in detailed research, says Lincoln Allison

A cyclist stops at a red light at a level crossing to illustrate PhD enrolment hangs on an email

How ‘will you be my supervisor’ emails control entry to PhD study

Late responses to PhD applicant enquiries and lack of signposting might contribute to poor ethnic minority representation at doctoral level, researchers say

Related universities

UK research’s islands of excellence need flood defences

As a loss-maker, research is under pressure as fears of insolvency rise. But universities must do all they can to shore up a key element of their impact

Illustration of people in the sea looking out at scientists on islands around display cabinets to illustrate Will the funding crisis confine UK research to elite universities?

Will the funding crisis confine UK research to elite universities?

At a time of increasing financial constraint, jobs are being shed even in UK departments that ride high in the Research Excellence Framework, while time allocations for research are being cut. Can a loss-making activity like research survive outside traditional institutions, asks Jack Grove

Average master’s fee higher than postgraduate loan for first time

While value of government-backed loan has increased by 21 per cent since 2017-18, average fees have soared by 43 per cent

Peer review will only do its job if referees are named and rated

We need a mechanism whereby academics can build a public reputation as referees and receive career benefits for doing so, says Randy Robertson

Featured jobs

Digital Library

Background This PhD supervision training is initiated by the Ethiopian SuperStars project. The Ethiopian Superstars is an international training program that involves 7 Ethiopian universities (Addis Ababa University, Ambo University, Arba Minch University, Bahir Dar University, Hawassa University, Jimma University and Mekelle University). The project is coordinated by Jimma University and Ghent University, is financially supported by VLIR-UOS (www.vliruos.be) and runs from September 2023 to August 2026. The overall vison of Ethiopian SuperStars project is strengthening the advisory and coaching skills of academic staff at Ethiopian higher education institutions. To realize this, Ethiopian SuperStars works towards the following four milestones: Application_Formfor Ethiopian SuperStars 1

• Milestone 1: Train 210 academic staff on PhD supervision (30 at each university) • Milestone 2: Customize the training to an Ethiopian context • Milestone 3: Facilitate integration of training in Ethiopian universities

Quick Links

AMU Intranet
Academic Calendar
Finance & Budget Transparency

Corporate Communication P.O. Box 21 Arba Minch University

Tel: +251-46881-4986 Fax: +251-46881-0820/0279 E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

Alumni Registration
Agriculture
Business & Economics
Medicine and Health Sciences
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences & Humanities

Campus Guide

We're sorry but you will need to enable Javascript to access all of the features of this site.

Stanford Online

Welcome, artificial intelligence.

AI Courses and Programs

AI for Engineers and Technical Professionals

Ai for business professionals, ai for professionals in healthcare, artificial intelligence courses and programs.

Welcome to Stanford Online's hub for Artificial Intelligence education. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just beginning your journey, we have options for every level. Dive into the forefront of AI with industry insights, practical skills, and deep academic expertise of this transformative field.

Engineering
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Science & Security
Business & Management
Energy & Sustainability
Data Science
Medicine & Health
Explore All
Technical Support
Master’s Application FAQs
Master’s Student FAQs
Master's Tuition & Fees
Grades & Policies
Graduate Application FAQs
Graduate Student FAQs
Graduate Tuition & Fees
Community Standards Review Process
Academic Calendar
Exams & Homework FAQs
HCP History
Enrollment FAQs
Tuition, Fees, & Payments
Custom & Executive Programs
Free Online Courses
Free Content Library
School of Engineering
Graduate School of Education
Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability
School of Humanities & Sciences
Stanford Human Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI)
Graduate School of Business
Stanford Law School
School of Medicine
Learning Collaborations
Stanford Credentials
What is a digital credential?
Grades and Units Information
Our Community
Get Course Updates

Request Info

About Antioch University
Core Attributes of an Antioch Education
Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging
Why Antioch University?
Common Thread
Antioch Works for Democracy
Executive Leadership
Board of Governors
Office of the Chancellor

Administrative Resources

Accreditation
University Policies

Discover Our Campuses

Antioch Los Angeles
Antioch New England
Antioch Online
Antioch Santa Barbara
Antioch Seattle
Graduate School of Leadership & Change

Academic Focus Areas

Creative Writing & Communication
Counseling & Therapy
Environmental Studies & Sustainability
Individualized Studies
Leadership & Management
Nursing & Health Professions
Undergraduate Studies

Programs by Type

Master’s
Bachelor’s
Certificates
Credentials & Endorsements
Continuing Education

Programs by Modality

Low-Residency

Programs by Campus

Los Angeles
New England
Santa Barbara

Academic Resources

Academic Calendars
Academic Catalog
Disability Support Services
Faculty Directory
Writing Centers
Admissions Overview
Unofficial Transcript Evaluation
Upcoming Admissions Events
What to Expect

Information for

International Students
Transfer & Degree Completion Students
Veterans & Military-Connected Students

Dates & Deadlines

Tuition & fees.

GSLC Tuition & Fees
AULA Tuition & Fees
AUNE Tuition & Fees
AUO Tuition & Fees
AUSB Tuition & Fees
AUS Tuition & Fees

Financial Aid

Financial Aid Overview
Financial Aid Forms
Scholarships & Grants
Types of Aid
Work-Study Opportunities
Discover GSLC
Department & Office Directory
The Antiochian Leader (Newsletter)
Discover AULA
Department & Office Directory
Location & Contact Info
Discover AUNE
Location & Contact Info
Discover AU Online
Online Learning @AU
Discover AUSB
Location & Contact Information
Discover AUS
Department and Office Directory
Advancement
Grants and Foundation Relations
Information Technology
Institutional Effectiveness
Strategic Partnerships
Student Accounts
Academic Assessment
Consumer Information
Licensure Information
Resource List
Student Policies
Alumni Magazine
Chancellor’s Communications
Common Thread (University News)
Event Calendar

Core Faculty, (PhD) Counselor Education & Supervision Low Residency Program (remote)

Seattle, WA
Posted 6 days ago

Antioch University Seattle

Position Title: Core Faculty Classification: Faculty, Full-time Reports to: Chair, Counselor Education & Supervision (CES) Low Residency Program Location: Remote, with the ability to travel to campuses and other locations Compensation: Base $68,162.50, WA $73,343.88, CA 74,978.75 Start Date: October 2024

Antioch University Graduate School of Counseling, Psychology, and Therapy invites applications for a full-time Core Faculty member to join our progressive team in our PhD in Counselor Education and Supervision program. The low residential CES department at AUS is an accredited program (CACREP) encouraging a multicultural counselor identity appreciating diversity and human growth in context to social dynamics while also advocating for community justice, equity, and civil discourse. This is concurrent with an emphasis on systemic leadership, and supervisory skills needed to assist with organizational change and transformation. Within a cohort model, doctoral students are provided early experiential learning within a continuous integration of theory and practice as well as frequent opportunities for students to know and experience the curricular delivery of a counselor education program. The mission of Antioch University is to provide learner-centered education to empower students with the knowledge and skills to lead meaningful lives and to advance social, economic, racial, and environmental justice. Antioch aspires to be a leading university offering learners and communities transformative education in a global context that fosters innovation and inspires social action.

In alignment with Antioch’s mission, the PhD CDS program at Antioch is committed to experiential learning, social justice, extensive clinical training, scholarship, and the use of creative, progressive and applied approaches. The Core faculty is responsible to maintain work in all four areas of faculty engagement at Antioch University (student learning, scholarship, institutional citizenship and service). This position will have a primary focus on both teaching (24 quarter credit hours) and student research support. As a doctoral level faculty member, this individual is expected to be a leader in their field with an appropriate publication and presentation record and a working knowledge of alternative delivery models including technology-mediated/low-residency education.

Position Overview The position has responsibilities that include:

Direct instruction of 24 quarter credit hours equal to 18 semester credit hours per academic year
Engaging in student advising
Support of student research through dissertation committee involvement
Support of the CES program as related to the five foundational principles: Quality and Continuous Improvement with a focus on Student Assessment and Program
Accreditation; Research and Scholarship; Social Justice and Anti-Racism; Professional Agency; Growth and Expansion.
Meeting university expectations in scholarship, service, and institutional citizenship
Engaging in program, department, campus, and school/university citizenship
Engaging in ongoing department and program initiatives, particularly related to improvements in pedagogy and student engagement
Attending program residencies three times per year

QUALIFICATIONS: The PhD Core Faculty in the CES Program must hold:

An earned doctoral degree in Counselor Education and Supervision, CACREP/CACREP Aligned
Core Faculty designation/eligible within the Counseling Department
4+ years successful teaching history at graduate level in counselor education
Licensed as LMHC in State of Washington or equal licensing in another state or national counseling credential
Approved Supervisor credential (preferred).
Strong record of administrative/leadership experience in higher education.
A reflective commitment to the training and supervision of multiculturally responsive and socially justice oriented CES doctoral trainees
A clear history of service to the counseling profession and an interest in leadership
A history of publication and presentation work at regional, national, and international levels
Strong record of leadership/coordination role within a Counseling Department
Strong record of teaching at the graduate level—a proven history of high marks in student evaluations (made available to the committee)
Optimistic, collaborative, and proactive leadership skills
Strong record of both online and on the ground teaching formats
Interest in the development of social justice leaders and agents of community dialogue and change.
Skilled in demonstration-based teaching (faculty need to teach using real/live demonstration) and experiential learning
Excellent organizational and time-management skills with the ability to oversee various operational processes within the department at one time
Clear developmental skills with a focus on providing new opportunities for students, faculty and staff to excel.
Excellent oral and written communication skills—an additional interest in grant writing is preferred
Ability to be flexible and working in an environment of expansion and change

The University Antioch University is a multi-campus, coast–to-coast institution of higher learning that provides learner-centered education to empower students with the knowledge and skills to lead meaningful lives and to advance social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

Benefits Voluntary Health, dental and vision plan and flexible spending account options; employer retirement plan contribution of 6%; voluntary salary deduction to a pre-tax or post-tax retirement account; employer paid life insurance and short term disability; voluntary supplemental life insurance, long-term disability, accidental death/dismemberment, critical illness, and accident coverage plans; 12 days per year sick leave (carry-over up to 65 days); tuition remission for employees and dependents at Antioch University campuses; and employee paid options with AFLAC, LegalShield, and Liberty Mutual.

Application Instructions To apply, please include a letter of application, curriculum vitae, a statement of your teaching philosophy, and a list of three current references and contact information. For further specifics about the program or position, please contact the Chair, Shawn Patrick ( [email protected] ) and/or the Counseling Divisional Dean, Cathy Lounsbury ( [email protected] ).

Review of applicants will begin immediately. Position is open until filled with a flexible start date. To apply, click here .

Coalition for the Common Good (CCG) EEO Statement The Coalition for the Common Good provides equal employment opportunity to all employees and applicants and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, national origin, disability status, genetics, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic or class protected by federal, state or local laws in matters affecting employment or in providing access to programs. This policy applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including recruitment, hiring, placement, promotion, termination, layoff, recall, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation, benefits, and training. The CCG complies with all state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Inquiries should be addressed to the Office of Human Resources or the Office of the General Counsel.

NOTE: The successful candidate for this position will be subject to a pre-employment background check.

This position is included in the bargaining unit of Antioch University faculty that is represented by SEIU Local 925. Terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit positions are subject to change based on collective bargaining.

Back to Job Listings

COMMENTS

PDF The Good Supervision Guide
supervision. Each of the three principles is divided into themes, with advice from the FGTs on how to put it into practice. 1. Set expectations, but be aware of the changing reality This section provides advice on setting expectations early in the PhD, being flexible, planning the PhD process and managing the time you spend on supervision. 2.
What Makes A Good PhD Supervisor?
4. Is a Good Mentor with a Supportive Personality. A good PhD supervisor should be supportive and willing to listen. A PhD project is an exercise in independently producing a substantial body of research work; the primary role of your supervisor should be to provide mentoring to help you achieve this.
Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction
PhD supervision. The supervision of doctoral students' research is governed by regulation. This means that there are some things you must - and must not - do when supervising a PhD. All the essential information is found in the UCL Code of Practice for Research Degrees. Full regulations in the UCL Academic Manual.
How to be a PhD supervisor
How to be a PhD supervisor. The relationship between PhD students and their supervisors is often said to be the most intense in the academy, with huge implications for student success. Yet most supervisors receive little if any training. Here, six academics give their take on how to approach it. April 18, 2019.
A brief primer on the PhD supervision relationship
1 INTRODUCTION. Becoming a successful academic and securing a principal investigator (PI) position at a research-intensive university requires many distinct skills (e.g., Madan, ... PhD supervision is associated with a variety of expectations and responsibilities, from both the student and the supervisor, but there is also not a single approach ...
Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor
Introduction. The PhD beckons. You thought long and hard about why you want to do it, you understand the sacrifices and commitments it entails, and you have decided that it is the right thing for you. ... Your PhD supervisor will strongly influence the success and quality of your degree as well as your general well-being throughout the program ...
What You Should Expect from Your PhD Supervisor
3. Feedback on Work in Progress. Another vital aspect to expect from your supervisor is to receive continuous feedback on your work. With your supervisor being an expert in their field, he should be able to review your work and identify any issues or areas for improvement. Gaining feedback on your work is critical through all stages of your PhD.
A beginner's guide to supervising a PhD researcher
Biochem (Lond) (2023) 45 (5): 11-15. This beginner's guide to supervision has been created for anyone who supports postgraduate researchers (PGRs) with any aspect of their research or the completion of their degree. The supervision of PGRs is a complex and time-consuming job, with a high degree of responsibility.
Fundamentals of PhD Supervision
Fundamentals of PhD Supervision is an online course that has been developed by the Institute for Academic Development in consultation with the Doctoral College and relevant staff in Colleges and Support Services. ... Introduction to PhD supervision at Edinburgh Recruitment and selection Supervisory roles, responsibilities and approaches .
PDF Approaches on PhD Supervision
upervision (Park et al 2007). This approach can be c. lled "hands on" approach. Therefore, two major approaches i.e. "Hands off" approach and "Hands on" approach of the doctoral supervision are selected to b. discussed in this narrative. The discussion on "hands off" approach will be limited to making the comparison and ...
Introduction to PhD supervision for PhD students
Introduction to PhD supervision for PhD students Centre for Educational Development Supervision is a key element of the PhD process. Learn and discuss the issues, roles and challenges of PhD supervision in this compulsory course for all PhD students at the Faculty of Arts, Aarhus University. Learning outcomes. Be familiar with the typical ...
Golden Rules for PhD Supervision
Golden Rules for PhD Supervision Supervisor PhD Candidate Be professional Be aware that all PhD candidates are different, with their own individual story, culture, competences and needs. Being a supervisor is a demanding job. There is no template for supervision. Keep an open mind and adapt to the PhD candidate. Co-supervision can be difficult.
ARTS: Introduction to PhD supervision for PhD students
Content. PhD supervision as a didactic genre in higher education, reflected on from the PhD student's point of view. The supervisory dialogue as a key element of the supervision process. Roles and relations between supervisor and student. The connection between the writing process and different forms of feedback during supervision meetings.
Supervising PhD students
Introduction to supervising PhD students. Workshop details. Dates for 2023-24. Monday 02 October 09.30-16.30 (in person) Wednesday 06 December 09.30-16.30 (in person) ... Postdocs supporting PhD supervision should consider, as an alternative, the workshop Being an assistant supervisor.
10 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor
1. Communicate Clearly. PhD supervisors are busy people, they receive countless emails every day from panicked students, colleagues chasing up peer-reviews, and potential PhD candidates like yourself. When you first contact a potential supervisor, stick to sending them a brief email. Note the brief there.
How to Write an Email to a PhD Supervisor and What to Ask Them
Your first email to a potential PhD supervisor should be a formal email, in many ways like an application cover letter. 1. Include a clear subject line. Make sure your initial email doesn't have a vague subject line that could lead to it being ignored (or heading straight for the spam folder). Some examples could be:
Supervisee perspectives on supervision processes: An introduction to
In this introduction to the special issue "Supervisee Perspectives on Supervision Processes," we provide a theoretical grounding and overview the research context of the articles across the special issue. With respect to theory, the articles in this special issue are conceptualized as reflecting key intersecting input, process, and output variables in the generic model of supervision.
Effective PhD Supervision
Effective PhD Supervision - Chapter Two - Guidelines for Supervisors. 2.1 Introduction. It is well recognised that despite the fact that support for postgraduate students at various levels is available in South Africa, a large and unacceptable proportion of such postgraduate students do not complete their studies.
How to prepare for PhD supervision meetings
You are responsible for organising the meeting. Make sure you organise your doctoral meeting well in advance and plan your agenda with time-realistic activities. A good way to do this is by rehearsing what you are going to present and then timing yourself. Additionally, ask yourself if the information you are presenting is key to helping your ...
Introduction to PhD Supervision
Introduction to PhD Supervision. Date 17 Jul 2024; Time 12.00pm - 1.30pm Book Now See all events; This workshop is for staff who have been identified and invited to attend as current or potential supervisors of UAL research students. Overview. This workshop is for staff who have been identified and invited to attend as current or potential ...
Research supervision training and development
Format: Self-led online course Aimed at: This course is mandatory for all members of UCL staff wishing to be appointed as research supervisors at UCL, including new members of staff with experience of research supervision at other institutions. Experienced UCL supervisors are also encouraged to work through the course as a refresher. The course hosts a central resource containing information ...
Guide to Emailing Prospective PhD Supervisor in 2024
Introduction. Embarking on a Ph.D. journey is akin to stepping onto a scholarly odyssey, and the first email to a prospective supervisor serves as the compass. It's not merely an introduction; it's the key to unlocking doors to academic mentorship and research collaboration. ... When addressing a potential PhD supervisor, the use of the ...
Quality from within: Entry points to research quality in the humanities
Introduction and objectives. In this day and age, quality is everywhere, and almost everything is evaluated in one way or another. The realm of science is certainly no exception. ... Notably, while some entry points, such as PhD supervision, stand out as being broad, nested and multi-activity practices, others, such as scholarly book reviews ...
Sara Chadwick
FAQs for Prospective PhD Students Interested in Working with Dr. Sara Chadwick . What type of research will a PhD student learn to conduct under Dr. Chadwick 's supervision? As a PhD student under my supervision, you will be trained in how to conduct research as a Feminist Psychologist.A feminist psychologist is a social scientist who conducts psychological research on feminist topics, using ...
Junior researchers 'cited more if PhD supervisor is well known'
The "impact persistence" between PhD mentors and mentees was slightly higher if the supervisor was female, the researchers note, suggesting that this is "possibly owing to female mentors having a lasting positive impact on mentees or providing career development facilitation to a larger extent than male mentors".
A Call for PhD SUPERVISION Training Applicants
This PhD supervision training is initiated by the Ethiopian SuperStars project. The Ethiopian Superstars is an international training program that involves 7 Ethiopian universities (Addis Ababa University, Ambo University, Arba Minch University, Bahir Dar University, Hawassa University, Jimma University and Mekelle University).
Artificial Intelligence Courses and Programs
AI for Business Professionals. These courses and programs are tailored for leaders, founders, team managers, and product professionals looking to create and implement AI strategies.
Core Faculty, (PhD) Counselor Education & Supervision Low Residency
Position Title: Core Faculty Classification: Faculty, Full-time Reports to: Chair, Counselor Education & Supervision (CES) Low Residency Program Location: Remote, with the ability to travel to campuses and other locations Compensation: Base $68,162.50, WA $73,343.88, CA 74,978.75 Start Date: October 2024 Antioch University Graduate School of Counseling, Psychology, and Therapy invites ...

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

Catherine Bannon

Rule 1: Align research interests

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

Rule 9: Trust your gut

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

Conclusions

Funding Statement

Fundamentals of PhD Supervision

Frequently Asked Questions

When should I do this course?

How do I access the course?

How long will it take to complete?

Does this course fulfil the compulsory training requirements for PhD Supervisors?

What does the course cover?

Does doing this course cover compulsory training requirements set by other research student funders (e.g. Research Councils)?

Will my attendance be recorded?

Who do I contact if I have comments or problems accessing the course?

Who do I contact if I have other questions about my role as a PhD supervisor?

PhD Courses in Denmark

Learning outcomes

Content and format

Supplemental information

ECTS credits and successful completion requirements

Target group

Information

Cookie consent

Centre for Educational Development

Learning outcome

Supplemental information

Registration

Bente Kristiansen

Birthe Tillgaard

Imperial College London Imperial College London

Supervising PhD students

Workshop details

Who should attend?

Imperial STAR Framework

You may also be interested in...

A practical guide to giving effective feedback

Introduction to personal tutoring

Introduction to making teaching more inclusive

Community Blog

10 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor

5 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor Before They Agree to Supervise You

2. Be Knowledgeable About Your Field

3. Research Them

4. Have a Long-Term Plan

5. Have a Project Plan

5 Ways to Impress a PhD Supervisor After They Agree to Supervise You

6. Be Proactive

7. Document, document, document

8. Network and Promote Your Research

9. Help Them

10. Clean up After Yourself

Browse PhDs Now

Join Thousands of Students

How to Write an Email to a PhD Supervisor and What to Ask Them

Pick the right programme for you

On this page

1. Include a clear subject line

2. Introduce yourself in the first paragraph

3. Explain your intent

4. Summarise your interest

5. Sign off professionally

Choosing the right supervisor

Some extra advice

Frequently asked questions

Should I send a CV to a PhD supervisor?

Should I send a research proposal to a PhD supervisor?

How to prepare for a meeting with a potential PhD supervisor

Preparation

Questions to ask a potential PhD supervisor

Ready to contact some universities?

When should I do this course?

Does doing this course cover compulsory training requirements set by other research student funders (e.g. Research Councils)? 