what is the role of a thesis supervisor

Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Introduction.

Effective graduate student supervision requires complex interactions between graduate students and their supervisors. The role of a supervisor is threefold: to advise graduate students, monitor their academic progress, and act as a mentor. Supervisors not only provide guidance, instruction and encouragement in the research activities of their students, but also take part in the evaluation and examination of their students’ progress, performance and navigation through the requirements of their academic program with the goal to ensure that their students are successful.

Supervisors are responsible for fostering the intellectual and scholarly development of their students. They also play an important role in providing advice about professional development and both academic and non-academic career opportunities, as they are able, and based upon the student’s career interests. 

While these expectations apply to all graduate students, supervising PhD students reflects a longer-term, more substantive commitment.  The privilege to supervise PhD students requires that the supervisor hold  Approved Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor (ADDS)  status. The intent of ADDS policy is to ensure that faculty have the appropriate knowledge to facilitate excellence in PhD supervision.

Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures

Effective graduate student supervision requires a knowledge and understanding of the University’s requirements and expectations.  To this end, supervisors should:

2.1    Be knowledgeable and remain updated on department, Faculty and University regulations, policies and procedures, and have these protocols guide the supervisors’ decision-making and behaviour as they interact with graduate students. Supervisors are encouraged to take the necessary steps to be well-informed with those Policies identified in  section 1.2 .

2.2    Be familiar with the support services available to students and faculty at the University including those articulated in  section 1.2 . This information is normally available through department graduate co-ordinators, Faculty Graduate Studies Offices, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA), the Graduate Student Association (GSA) or the University Secretariat.

2.3   Be informed about University of Waterloo policies and procedures that  inform academic integrity  (Office of Research).

2.4    Be aware of the University of Waterloo and Tri-Agency policies and procedures associated with the conduct of research.   Where appropriate, supervisors should be prepared to provide guidance to students on:

• The responsible conduct of research, with particular emphasis on the Tri-Agency Framework as defined in the  Faculty Association of University of Waterloo (FAUW) /University of Waterloo memorandum of Agreement (Section 14).
• The  ethical conduct of research  (Office of Research) involving animals, animal or human tissues, and human participants

2.5    Have knowledge of the  policies and procedures that govern international travel and security  that can be found at Waterloo International.

Advice on program of study, research and professional development

As noted above, supervisors are expected to serve as mentors to their graduate students.  To this end, supervisors should be prepared to provide well-informed advice on academics and professional development.  More specifically, supervisors should be prepared to advise students on:

2.6    An academic program that is challenging, at the appropriate level for the degree being sought, and that can be accomplished within commonly understood and desirable time and resource expectations of the student and the supervisor.

2.7    The choice of courses and seminars needed to fulfil the degree requirements.

2.8    The development and construct of a research topic and proposal.

2.9    The development of a communication plan with the supervisory/advisory committee as to how the student’s progress will be assessed (including during thesis writing and completion), and the role of advisory committee members in the assessment.

2.10    The availability of internships, practica, co-op or other experiential learning opportunities as part of the program.

2.11    The availability of professional development resources for Waterloo graduate students to help advance the students’ career objectives.

Meetings/consultation 

The establishment and communication of common expectations are critical elements to positive experiences for both graduate students and their supervisors.  Achieving these outcomes can be facilitated by regular meetings and/or consultation between students, their supervisors, and where appropriate advisory committees. Especially important is timely feedback on students’ written submissions. 

The University encourages supervisors to:

2.12    Ensure, especially important in the case of doctoral students, that the student has:

• An advisory committee as required.
• A program of study consistent with department and Faculty requirements that has been approved by the advisory committee as required.
• A research plan that is appropriate in breadth, depth and time to completion (see  Milestones in master's and doctoral programs ).

2.13    Arrange for regular (as agreed by the student and supervisor) meetings (which may involve the advisory committee) with students for consultation to ensure steady progress. The frequency of such meetings will depend on the discipline/field of study, type of program, and the student’s progress. At least two, preferably more, meetings should be arranged in each academic term. Supervisors should also be reasonably accessible for meetings requested by their students. The approach to these student meetings should be individualized to reflect the needs of the student. For example, some students may need more support while other may need less.

2.14    Communicate their evaluation of student progress to the department once a year or more often if required. The report should clearly indicate the status of the student’s progress (i.e., satisfactory or unsatisfactory).  In the latter case, the report must include a clearly articulated set of conditions that if satisfied will restore the student’s status to satisfactory. Where the supervisor feels that the student will have serious difficulties finishing the program, the supervisor, in consultation with the advisory committee as appropriate, will inform in writing, both the student and the graduate officer of the nature of the problem(s), suggested remedies and may recommend withdrawal from the program.  More information on  assessing students’ progress  can be found in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar.

2.15    Thoroughly review and provide constructive feedback on all written materials relevant to the thesis or research paper submitted by their students. The supervisor and the student are encouraged to establish in writing expectations on what constitutes timely feedback; a timeframe of two to three weeks depending on the complexity of the document is commonly applied. However, this can vary depending on various circumstances such as travel or vacation.  These circumstances should be discussed between the supervisor and student.

2.16    Have knowledge of the  guidelines for evaluating students’ progress in a research program  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar).

2.17   Inform students about the  broad spectrum of resources available  (Writing and Communication Centre) to facilitate development of oral communication and writing skills.

2.18    Be active and supportive in promoting students’ well-being.  This may include:

• Inquiring about a student’s well-being, as appropriate.
• Directing students to  appropriate support services , including  Mental Health and Wellness resources  (Campus Wellness).
• Displaying empathy towards the student.

2.19    Complete as appropriate the University requirements for  Sexual violence awareness, referral and support training  (Human Rights, Equity and Inclusion Office) to understand how to respond to disclosures of sexual violence and refer students to the appropriate supports.

The University recognizes that supervisors will be away from the University for extended periods of time (e.g., sabbatical, satellite campus, visiting professorship).  Being physically away from the University does not preclude a supervisor from remaining engaged with their graduate students.  In cases where the supervisor will not be available either in person or via electronic communications, the supervisor should:

2.20    Inform students, prospective students and the department of any anticipated extended period where communication will not be occurring. In cases when the absence is for a period of two months or more, supervisors should arrange for suitable communication methods. Interim supervision also must be arranged, for example, using members of advisory committees. Supervisors must inform the student’s department (chair/graduate officer) of the arrangements made for the period of absence, including supervision of laboratory or field work where graduate students continue to work during the absence.

2.21    Ensure students know that in situations where a supervisor works away from campus for two months or more and where their students can accompany the supervisor, the decision to remain on campus or to follow the supervisor rests entirely with the student. Students shall face no pressure (explicit or implicit) or consequences when making this choice and are not required to provide any reason.

As with the departmental representatives, supervisors have responsibility to advance safety.  More specifically, supervisors should:

2.22    Ensure a safe working environment both on and off campus (working alone, field work) by assessing hazards and implementing appropriate controls. This must be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act,  Policy 34  (Secretariat) and department and Faculty regulations.  All supervisors must complete mandatory  health and safety supervisor awareness training  (Safety Office) and must ensure that graduate students complete both mandatory and work-specific safety training.  More information can be found on the  Safety Office  website.

2.23    Ensure that students obtain additional training when new safety risks arise and ensure training is kept up to date.

Inherent to graduate education are the dissemination of knowledge and the participation in scholarly activities away from the University campus.  Travel (domestic and international) can include fieldwork, conferences, course work and other work related to the thesis. Supervisors are encouraged to support students’ travel to accomplish these important objectives.  Supervisors should:

2.24    Follow or encourage students to follow  Policy 31  (Secretariat) that governs University-sanctioned travel.

2.25    Categorize and report risk associated with travel.  Low risk  (Safety Office) are activities for which it is expected that participants will encounter hazards that are no greater than what they encounter in their everyday lives. Examples of  significant risk  (e.g. industrial sites, remote regions etc.) are noted on the  Safety Office website .  Travel or field work that involves significant risk must be documented using the  Fieldwork Risk Management Form  from the  Safety Office .  For low risk activities off campus, supervisors should:

• Provide advice on preparation for pre-departure orientation and planning for any travel and including associated risk, as they are able;

2.26    Document the student(s) location and duration of travel, including personal and emergency contact information. Review the material provided by  Waterloo International  to understand how to best mitigate risk and ensure safety for international travel.

2.27    Encourage students to register using the  Pre-departure Travel Form  at  Waterloo International .

2.28    Consult the  Government of Canada Travel Advice and Advisories web page  for the international destination and discuss the mitigation of risk with the students to the destination.

Financial assistance

Supervisors regularly provide financial support for their graduate students.  Both the supervisor and the student benefit when a clear understanding exists of the value of funding, and the academic outcomes that should occur from the supported activities.  Specifically, supervisors should:

2.29    Be informed about the spectrum of funding opportunities available through the department, Faculty and Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA) for students in  financial need  and to communicate these sources to student.

2.30   Communicate clearly and in writing to their students the terms (e.g., amounts, length of time, conditions) of the financial commitment being made when financial assistance is to be provided from research grants or contracts under the supervisor’s direction.

2.31    Support students’ understanding of their funding, including a consideration of student expenses (primarily tuition and housing) and taxation, if appropriate.  

Intellectual property 

Increasingly, students and supervisors enter into their academic relationships with previously established intellectual property (IP).  Moreover, students and supervisors may have an expectation that their collective work may produce new IP.  Best practices include the articulation of students’ and supervisors’ understanding of IP relationships at regular intervals throughout the students’ academic program.  More specifically, supervisors should: 

2.32    Discuss issues related to intellectual property such as patents, software, copyright, and income from sales and royalties, and inform students of University policies about intellectual property and the conduct of research. It should be recognized that, in accordance with  Policy 73  (Secretariat), intellectual property normally is owned by the creators. However, the University retains a royalty-free right to use, for educational and research purposes, any intellectual property created by faculty, staff and students. Ideally, supervisors and students should enter into a written agreement that expresses IP owned by either party prior to beginning the research relationship and the default way in which IP created by the researchers’ joint activities will be owned.  A common example is an assumption in the absence of an explicit agreement of joint IP ownership, with each researcher owning an equal share.

2.33    Ensure that students are aware of implications and/or obligations regarding intellectual property of research conducted under contract. If appropriate, discuss with their students and any research partners the protection of intellectual property by patent or copyright. Any significant intellectual contribution by a student must be recognized in the form of co-authorship. Supervisors must convey to students, in advance of publication, whether they intend to recognize the student as co-author for work under contract.

Publications 

Academic outputs – in various forms – document and demonstrate ownership of creative research and other scholarly activities.  These outputs are important for advancing knowledge and catalyzing additional scholarly activity in these areas and should be encouraged.  When supervisors and graduate students work collectively on these academic works, it is important for both that their relative contributions are represented appropriately.  To achieve these goals, supervisors should:

2.34    Discuss with their students, at an early stage of their program, authorship practices within the discipline and University policies about publications ( Policy 73  on the Secretariat website). 

2.35    Discuss and reach agreement with students, well in advance of publication and ideally at the outset of collaboration, the way in which authorship will be shared, if appropriate, between the supervisor, the student and other contributors for work conducted under contract.

2.36    Encourage the dissemination of students’ research results by publication in scholarly and research journals, presentation at conferences (domestic or international) and seminars;

2.37    Motivate the dissemination of research through non-traditional or non-academic avenues (e.g. Open Access resources, public presentations, and popular media).

Withdrawal of supervisory duties 

In rare cases supervisors may determine that they are not prepared or able to continue in a supervisory capacity.  When this occurs, the supervisor is required to:

2.38    Follow the guidelines in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar regarding  University Responsibilities Regarding Supervisory Relationships  that outlines the steps for dissolution of the supervisory relationship.

Accommodation 

The University is eager to establish conditions that maximize graduate students’ likelihood of success.  To this end, supervisors:

2.39    Have a duty to engage in accommodations processes with  AccessAbility Services , as requested, and to provide appropriate accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

2.40    Remain informed of their roles and responsibilities with respect to accommodations.

Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision

• Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators
• Roles and responsibilities of graduate students
• Roles and responsibilities of advisory committees

Duties of a thesis supervisor and the supervision plan

Search for degree programme, open university programmes.

• Open university Flag this item

Bachelor's Programmes

• Bachelor's Programme for Teachers of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Agricultural Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Applied Psychology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Art Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Biology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Chemistry Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Computer Science (TKT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Cultural Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher (KLU, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Education (LO-KT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Educational Psychology (LO-KP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Craft Teacher Education (KÄ) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Early Education Teacher (SBP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Early Education Teacher (VO) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (PED, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (YL and AKT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Home Economics Teacher (KO) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Special Education (EP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Environmental and Food Economics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Environmental Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Food Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Forest Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Geography Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Geosciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in History Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Languages Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Law Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Logopedics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Mathematical Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Molecular Biosciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Pharmacy Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Philosophy Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Physical Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Politics, Media and Communication Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Psychology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Science (BSC) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Social Research Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Social Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Society and Change Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in the Languages and Literatures of Finland Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Veterinary Medicine Flag this item

Master's and Licentiate's Programmes

• Degree Programme in Dentistry Flag this item
• Degree Programme in Medicine Flag this item
• Degree Programme in Veterinary Medicine Flag this item
• International Masters in Economy, State & Society   Flag this item
• Master ́s Programme in Development of health care services Flag this item
• Master's Programme for Teachers of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Agricultural Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Agricultural, Environmental and Resource Economics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Area and Cultural Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Art Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Atmospheric Sciences (ATM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Changing Education Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Chemistry and Molecular Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Computer Science (CSM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Contemporary Societies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Cultural Heritage Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Culture and Communication (in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Data Science Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher (KLU, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Education (LO-KT) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Educational Psychology (LO-KP) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Craft Teacher Education (KÄ) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Early Education (VAKA) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (PED, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (YL and AKT) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Home Economics Teacher (KO) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Special Education (EP) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in English Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Environmental Change and Global Sustainability Flag this item
• Master's Programme in European and Nordic Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Finnish and Finno-Ugrian Languages and Cultures Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Food Economy and Consumption Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Food Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Forest Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Gender Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Genetics and Molecular Biosciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Geography Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Geology and Geophysics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Global Politics and Communication Flag this item
• Master's Programme in History Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Human Nutrition and Food-Related Behaviour Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Integrative Plant Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Intercultural Encounters Flag this item
• Master's Programme in International Business Law Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Languages Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Law Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Life Science Informatics (LSI) Flag this item
• Master's programme in Linguistic Diversity and Digital Humanities Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Literary Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Logopedics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Materials Research (MATRES) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Mathematics and Statistics (MAST) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Neuroscience Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Particle Physics and Astrophysical Sciences (PARAS) Flag this item
• Master's programme in Pharmaceutical Research, Development and Safety Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Pharmacy Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Philosophy Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Politics, Media and Communication Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Psychology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Russian, Eurasian and Eastern European Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Scandinavian Languages and Literature Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social and Health Research and Management Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social Research Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social Sciences (in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Society and Change Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Theoretical and Computational Methods (TCM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Translation and Interpreting Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Translational Medicine Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Urban Studies and Planning (USP) Flag this item
• Master’s Programme in Global Governance Law Flag this item
• Nordic Master Programme in Environmental Changes at Higher Latitudes (ENCHIL) Flag this item

Doctoral Programmes

• Doctoral Programme Brain and Mind Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Atmospheric Sciences (ATM-DP) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Biomedicine (DPBM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Chemistry and Molecular Sciences (CHEMS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Clinical Research (KLTO) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Clinical Veterinary Medicine (CVM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Cognition, Learning, Instruction and Communication (CLIC) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Computer Science (DoCS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Drug Research (DPDR) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Food Chain and Health Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Gender, Culture and Society (SKY) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Geosciences (GeoDoc) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in History and Cultural Heritage Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Human Behaviour (DPHuB) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Integrative Life Science (ILS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences (DENVI) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Language Studies (HELSLANG) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Law Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Materials Research and Nanoscience (MATRENA) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Mathematics and Statistics (Domast) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Microbiology and Biotechnology Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Oral Sciences (FINDOS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Particle Physics and Universe Sciences (PAPU) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Philosophy, Arts and Society Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Plant Sciences (DPPS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Political, Societal and Regional Changes (PYAM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Population Health (DOCPOP) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in School, Education, Society and Culture Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Social Sciences Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Sustainable Use of Renewable Natural Resources (AGFOREE) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Wildlife Biology (LUOVA) Flag this item

Specialist training programmes

• Multidisciplinary studies for class teachers (teaching in Finnish) Flag this item
• Multidisciplinary studies for class teachers (teaching in Swedish) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (ELO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (LEO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (VEO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies in subject teacher education Flag this item
• Spe­cific Train­ing in Gen­eral Med­ical Prac­tice Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Clinical Mental Health Psychology Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Neuropsychology Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Environmental Health and Food Control (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Equine Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Food Production Hygiene Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Infectious Animal Diseases (new) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Production Animal Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Community and Hospital Pharmacy (for B.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Community and Hospital Pharmacy (for M.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Industrial Pharmacy (for B.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Industrial Pharmacy (for M.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Dentistry Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Hospital Chemistry Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Hospital Microbiology Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Medicine, 5-year training Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Medicine, 6-year training Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Environmental Health and Food Control Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Equine Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, general veterinary medicine Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Infectious Animal Diseases (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Production Animal Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Trainer Training Programme in Integrative Psychotherapy Flag this item
• Training Programme for Psychotherapists Flag this item
• Language Centre
• Open University

Supervision work is closely linked to the intended learning outcomes of the degree and thesis as well as the related grading criteria. In accordance with the Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights at the University of Helsinki, the student must receive instruction both during their studies and while writing their thesis.  See here for instructions on ensuring that your supervision is aligned with the learning outcomes.

On this page

Supervision principles.

The Rector decides on the principles of supervision, including the rights and obligations of the student and the supervisor. The degree programme’s curriculum must contain instructions on how to prepare a personal study plan, along with the practices for approving and updating the plan. Please review the curriculum of your faculty and the thesis grading criteria in order to ensure that your supervision is aligned with the learning outcomes.

In the Rector’s decision, supervision refers to the support provided for the student’s or doctoral candidate’s learning process as they change, gain experience and grow as an expert. As a whole, supervision consists of communication, advice, instruction and special guidance. Supervision and counselling can be organised in a group led by the supervisor, at a seminar, in a peer group of students or doctoral candidates organised by the supervisor or in a personal meeting separately agreed between the supervisor and the student/doctoral candidate. Supervision and counselling can also be provided electronically through, for example, Moodle or other teaching tools available. 

Members of the teaching and research staff provide counselling that is related to teaching and research and requires knowledge of the content of different studies and disciplines. This counselling may concern, for example, personal study plans or thesis supervision. 

Guidance and counselling are provided in the Finnish and Swedish-language and multilingual degree programmes in Finnish or Swedish depending on the student’s native language or in English or another language as agreed with the student. If the student’s native language is a language other than Finnish or Swedish, guidance and counselling are provided in English or, if agreed with the student, in another language. In English-language master’s programmes and doctoral programmes, guidance can also be provided solely in English.

The degree programme steering group is responsible for ensuring that each student is appointed with a primary supervisor who is responsible for the supervision of their thesis. Additional supervisors may also be appointed. Your supervision plan can be used to agree on the responsibilities related to the supervision.

Supervision as interaction and the supervision plan

Supervision is about interaction with responsibilities that are divided between the different parties of the supervision relationship. Ambiguities related to supervision are often due to the parties’ different expectations regarding the content and responsibilities of the supervision and the fact that the parties are often unaware of the others’ expectations. Below, you can find a table that serves as a great tool for considering the different rights and obligations related to supervision

The policies and practices of supervision should be discussed in the early stages of the thesis process. The supervisor and the student may also prepare a written supervision plan that clarifies the schedule for the supervision and the thesis work as well as the content of the supervision. The plan can also be utilised if any problems arise or you fall behind schedule.

Topics the supervisor should incorporate in the supervision

When supervising a student’s thesis work, remember to pay attention to the following topics:

• the responsible conduct of research and avoiding cheating
• guiding the student in matters related to data protection  
• matters related to open access publications and the public availability of theses  
• inform the student of the general process of thesis examination and approval and the related schedule 

Different faculties may have their own decisions and instructions on thesis supervision. Please read the instructions provided by your faculty.

See also the Instructions for Students

You will find related content for students in the Studies Service.

Bachelor’s theses and maturity tests

Thesis and maturity test in master's and licentiate's programmes.

• Instructions for students
• Notifications for students

Thesis supervision

Find a thesis supervisor.

Thesis supervisors must be authorized by their Faculty to supervise theses.

Finding a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

Before thinking about a supervisor, students should make sure they are committing to the area of study that most interests them. They should ask themselves whether they are enthusiastic enough about a topic area to sustain this enthusiasm over the period of time it will take to prepare the thesis. Speaking to students and professors who do research in the proposed area of study will help clarify the students’ thoughts. The students should make sure they are well-informed before they approach any potential supervisors.

A professor is not obligated to take on a student if he or she feels the match-up would not be a good one, or if the professor lacks lab space, time or funding.

A student may have more than one supervisor. When mention is made of the thesis supervisor, it is implicit that there may be a co-supervisor.

• Information to collect before contacting a potential supervisor
• Questions to ask after the meeting with the potential supervisor
• Professors, by research interest

Appointment of a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

From the uoZone Application tab, click Service Requests to create a service request and appoint a thesis supervisor.

Meetings between the supervisor and the student arrow_drop_down

Preliminary meetings.

Before a student begins researching and writing a thesis, the supervisor and the student should have a detailed discussion of expectations and requirements. Below are examples of general and specific issues to be discussed during the preliminary meetings.

As soon as possible, the student should obtain ethics approvals or any other required approvals to conduct research. The student should discuss with the thesis supervisor and visit the  Office of Research Ethics and Integrity  Website.

• General and specific topics to be discussed

Regular meetings

The student and the supervisor should plan to meet regularly whether or not the student has any finished work to show to the supervisor.

If it is a major meeting, the student should draw up and deliver to the supervisor an agenda beforehand. If the meeting is to discuss text that has already been written, the student must send the draft well in advance of the meeting. 

After the meeting, and based on this agenda, the student prepares a brief report on what was discussed and decided, and shares this report with the supervisor.

It is important to be productive at these major meetings, but it is also crucial to just keep in touch.

Components of a typical agenda

• a summary of the purpose of the meeting
• a review of what was discussed at the previous meeting and what has been accomplished to date
• a discussion and clarification of the current topics, ideas and issues
• next steps as a result of this discussion
• agree with a date for the next meeting

Feedback and revision arrow_drop_down

All along during the thesis preparation process, a student will receive feedback and should expect to do revisions. Revising a thesis based on feedback from the thesis supervisor, advisory committee (if applicable) and from the jury is an important part of the thesis preparation process.

Part of the advancement of knowledge that preparing a thesis fosters involves engaging in dialogue and learning from these discussions, learning how to communicate clearly, and responding appropriately to suggestions for improvement

Already a student?

Types of supervision, co-supervision arrow_drop_down.

A joint management with a professor in another discipline may be considered if the research project of a student is favoured.

Cotutelle arrow_drop_down

A doctoral student may prepare a thesis under a cotutelle agreement. You find below additional information to help familiarize yourself with the roles played by each of the stakeholders.  

Learn more about Cotutelle.

Thesis advisory committee arrow_drop_down

In many academic units, a thesis advisory committee, also referred to as thesis committee, is assembled as soon as a student finds a thesis supervisor. Please note that not all academic units have thesis committees, the students must check on the protocol in their own academic unit.

Constitution of the thesis committee

How the thesis committee is formed varies from academic unit to academic unit. The thesis supervisor plays the biggest role by approaching colleagues who have the expertise and inviting them to join the committee.

A thesis committee is made up of:

• the student
• the thesis supervisor, and
• usually at least two other professors.

The thesis supervisor is usually the chair of the thesis committee.

Role of the thesis committee

While the roles and responsibilities of thesis committees may vary from one academic unit to another, members of the committee should provide guidance to the student on thesis planning, research and writing; be available to discuss ideas or for consultation on any other matter related to the thesis; and, if this is the practice within the discipline, evaluate the thesis after submission.

Thesis committees meet according to a schedule set either by the academic unit or by the committee itself. The student is usually responsible for initiating the meetings. When concerns about the progress of the research arise, the supervisor and/or academic unit may require meetings at more frequent intervals.

Useful information

Contracts arrow_drop_down.

Some supervisors and students have contracts or agreements to formalize the expectations and delineate the responsibilities in the preparation of a thesis.

Although these agreements are not considered official documents with force of law, they set out the expectations of the student and supervisor in relation to many of the issues covered in this Website section and help avoid conflict and misunderstandings.

A student should not make assumptions about who will do what in the research and who gets credit for any new discoveries or inventions. A supervisor should not assume the supervised student is aware of any assumptions the supervisor has or any authorship or credit protocols that may exist in the area of research.

Professors who use contracts do so because they have found such agreements are a good tool for helping students achieve their goals and finish their theses. However, while a written agreement can be very useful, one of the keys to a successful supervisor–student relationship is good communication and mutual trust. Both sides need to foster and build on that. 

Absences arrow_drop_down

Sometimes a potential supervisor is approached by a student looking for a thesis supervisor and both the student and professor agree it would be a good match, but the professor is going on an academic leave partway through the period in which the student will be preparing this thesis. In the event of a scheduled absence from the University for more than one month, the thesis supervisor must make the necessary arrangements with his students and the academic unit concerned to ensure that students continue to be accompanied during the supervisor's absence.

A thesis supervisor who is going to be away should let the student know well in advance. The same goes for the student. The student should discuss this with the thesis supervisor well ahead of time. In case of illness, the student should let the supervisor know the expected timeline for recovery.

If the student is planning to suspend work on the thesis for a term or more, for whatever reason, the student needs to apply for and receive approval for a leave of absence. Please note that absence has an impact on eligibility for funding.

Professionalism arrow_drop_down

As a student, the development of professional skills—for example, communicating appropriately in writing and in person, responding promptly to e-mails, coming prepared to meetings, following up after meetings, respecting deadlines, tracking changes to the text so that it is easy for the supervisor to review each draft after revisions—is important in the preparation of the thesis. Some faculties offer courses in professional skills.

If the student feels aspects of the supervisor’s behavior are unprofessional, he or she should consult the graduate program director or the chair of the academic unit.

Changing supervisors arrow_drop_down

As for changing supervisors partway through a thesis, this is not recommended. Keep in mind that as long as the thesis is logical and the conclusions drawn from the data are valid, the student and the supervisor do not need to be in total agreement on methodology, analysis or interpretation.

The thesis committee may be able to fill in whatever gaps the student perceives in the relationship with the supervisor. If the research goes off in an unexpected direction, one that is not very familiar to the thesis supervisor, the student could see what opportunities are available and what guidelines the academic unit has for this situation. The student could consider joint supervision as an alternative to finding a new supervisor.

If the student has explored all other options and still wish to change supervisors, he or she should talk to the graduate program director. If the supervisor happens to be the graduate program director, the student should talk to the director of the academic unit. If the student remains uncertain or dissatisfied, he or she should talk to the vice-dean graduate studies of his/her home faculty. Beyond that, the student can talk to the university ombudsperson. The student can request that the exchanges with any or all of these individuals (directors, vice-dean, ombudsperson) remain confidential.

The student should be sure to explore options carefully before withdrawing from the supervisory arrangement—a student who terminates the relationship with a supervisor before finding another supervisor may have difficulty securing another supervisor and compromise the thesis project.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Honors Program

• Thesis Supervisor
• Online Submission Instructions
• Online Approval Instructions
• Thesis Extensions
• Publishing in Open Commons

Your choice of Honors thesis supervisor shapes how you personalize the final stages of your academic studies at UConn and in Honors. You will select a thesis supervisor who will work closely with you and serve as a scholarly guide throughout the development, implementation, and conclusion of your thesis project.

What does the thesis supervisor do?

Your thesis supervisor is an expert on your thesis topic and will work closely with you in all stages of your project. Your supervisor is an important mentor for the process of completing your thesis as well as your specific topic, but they are not expected to be knowledgeable about other aspects of Honors.

Your Honors advisor is generally not your Thesis Supervisor; both are important toward your completion of your Honors thesis. Your advisor is knowledgeable about Honors requirements for your major, but they may not know as much about your specific topic. Keep them informed throughout your thesis work, because your Honors advisor must approve both your Thesis Plan and your final thesis . Your Honors advisor will continue to provide advice and support in your final semesters, including your choice of coursework.

Your Honors advisor and your thesis supervisor may be the same person if (a) your thesis topic aligns with your Honors advisor’s research, or (b) your department’s policy is to switch your Honors advisor to your thesis supervisor.

Who can be a thesis supervisor?

Your official thesis supervisor must be a faculty member at UConn (including UConn Health or regional campuses). Graduate students may not serve as official thesis supervisors, although they may be directly and actively involved in your thesis process. Your Honors advisor will need to approve your selection of thesis supervisor.

You should consult faculty members and advisors in your field to find the best person to help guide you through the thesis process. Select someone you can envision working with for multiple semesters; this relationship is critical to the success of your thesis!

Tips for securing, retaining, and managing the relationship with your thesis supervisor:

• Although your thesis timetable will differ based on your department, in general  you should have secured a thesis supervisor no later than the 2 nd semester of your junior year. For some majors, especially the sciences, thesis research arrangements should be made by the end of your sophomore year or very early in your junior year.
• Use the steps in the suggested timeline to learn what faculty members in your department or related departments are working on.
• Request a meeting to discuss shared interests and determine if the partnership is a fit. This in-person meeting is critical; don’t ask someone to be your thesis supervisor via email. Learn more about the best ways to connect with faculty .
• During or after the meeting, confirm with the faculty member that they are willing to serve as your thesis supervisor . A faculty member who agrees to work with you on “Honors research” has not necessarily agreed to supervise your thesis!
• Create a timeline with your thesis supervisor and set expectations for how often you will communicate and meet, as well as any internal deadlines.
• Stay in touch with your thesis supervisor throughout the process. Stick to deadlines, but communicate and seek help when you need it.
• Ask questions about your thesis, your field, and their journey in the field. Make the most of having this mentor.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Enrichment Programs

Individualized & Interdisciplinary Studies Program

Guide for thesis supervisors.

Thank you for supervising an individualized major senior thesis project. Your expertise is critical in guiding the student’s project and setting the criteria for its evaluation. The guidelines below outline some considerations particular to individualized major students. They are most appropriate for traditional research projects but may also be relevant to less traditional final projects.

All individualized majors complete a capstone, which provides them an opportunity to integrate knowledge they have acquired during the course of their majors. About 40-45 percent of individualized majors do so by completing a thesis. (The rest complete our capstone course or an approved alternative.)

Thesis projects usually take the form of a traditional research study, but other formats, such as a photo essay, film, website, or piece of creative writing are also possible. Thesis projects, whatever their form, should contribute to the development of knowledge or practice in new ways, involve significant background research, and require sustained attention in the implementation of the project. If the final product takes a less traditional form, it should include a piece of writing that describes the student’s learning process.

Thesis Courses

Some thesis projects will comprise six credits completed over the course of two semesters. This is mandatory for students completing Honors Scholar requirements in their individualized major. Non-honors students may complete a one-semester, three-credit thesis project. Students intending to complete a thesis project must submit a thesis proposal  which they have discussed with their thesis supervisor no later than the last day of classes of the semester before they begin their thesis.

In the social sciences and humanities : In the Fall semester of the senior year, students will typically begin their research by enrolling in a thesis-related research seminar, graduate course, or independent study in their thesis supervisor’s department. During the Spring semester, students will enroll in UNIV 4697W Senior Thesis (for which the thesis supervisor serves as instructor) in which they will complete the research and write the thesis. During this process, the student meets regularly with the thesis supervisor for feedback on data collection, evidence gathering, analysis, and writing.

In the sciences , students may follow a more extended sequence, perhaps two to three semesters of data collection and laboratory work (independent studies or research courses) followed by thesis writing (UNIV 4697W) in the final semester.

Learning Outcomes

Individual faculty will differ in expectations regarding research methodology, theoretical approaches, and presentation of findings. Nonetheless, there are some general criteria and intended learning outcomes for all individualized major thesis projects.

• The student’s research, analysis, and writing on the thesis project should be relevant to their individualized major and represent an opportunity for them to integrate and deepen at least several aspects of study in the major.
• A thesis should do more than summarize the existing literature on a particular topic. It should make an original contribution to the field of study, present new findings in the form of new data, or new, critical interpretations of existing material. It should reflect a good command of the research methodologies in the relevant discipline(s).

Upon completion of the thesis project the student should be able to:

• Define a research question and design a substantial research project.
• Select a methodological approach to address the research question.
• Identify appropriate sources and collect relevant and reliable data that addresses the research question.
• Analyze the strengths and limitations of different scholarly approaches to the question, and recognize the resulting interpretative conflicts.
• Develop an argument that is sustained by the available evidence
• Present that argument in a clear, well-organized manner.

Requirements for Honors Students

As noted above, all Honors students are expected to complete at least six credits of thesis-relevant coursework. In addition, all Honors students are expected to have a second reader and make a public presentation of their thesis project.

Second Reader

We ask Honors students to identify a second reader for their thesis from a relevant discipline, which may be the same as, or different from, the supervisor’s discipline. The second reader will provide the student with a different perspective and may provide additional insights on how to achieve the intended learning outcomes of the thesis. The thesis supervisor, in consultation with the student, determines when to bring the second reader on board. It is the supervisor’s prerogative to define how the grade for the thesis will be determined.

Public Presentation

Honors students are required to make a public presentation of their thesis research in a format negotiated with the thesis supervisor. Where possible, the audience should include the thesis supervisor, the second reader, and an IISP staff member. Other faculty members and the student’s peers may be invited to join the audience, as well.

Existing departmental exhibitions or “Frontiers in Undergraduate Research” make excellent venues for student presentations. If a student cannot find a venue for his or her presentation, please consult with IISP and we will coordinate one.

Note: Although non-Honors students who are completing a thesis are not required to have a second reader or make a public presentation, we would certainly welcome them to do so.

Honors Advising

An IISP staff member serves as Honors Advisor to each individualized major following an Honors Scholar plan of study. The staff member’s role as an Honors advisor is to coordinate and facilitate students’ plans for completing Honors Scholar requirements, including the thesis, and to monitor progress toward completion.

Thesis Course Registration

Specific instructions for registering for UNIV 4697W are available on the Capstone page .

We very much appreciate your willingness to supervise an individualized major’s senior thesis. If you have any questions about the Individualized Major Program or about supervising an individualized major thesis, please contact IISP staff .

Lend Your Expertise Thesis Roles & Responsibilities

The thesis is the culmination of honors education at Penn State, so being part of a Scholar's thesis committee is a particularly important role. While some faculty have assisted Scholars with honors theses before and are familiar with the roles and responsibilities, others may not know that undergraduate theses even exist until a student asks them to participate. The following information has been prepared to assist you in serving on a student's thesis committee.

Thesis Supervisor

Thesis supervisors are selected by Scholars and judge the merits of a Scholar’s honors thesis. The relationship between supervisor and Scholar is integral to the ultimate success of the thesis.

Your Decision

Thesis expectations, other participants, writing quality, irb/iacuc approvals, publication embargoes.

As with the graduate thesis, honors thesis supervision may involve only intellectual and editorial mentoring, or it may bring the student into your scholarly work and its physical setting in the lab and/or in the field. The first scenario may be lower-impact for you as thesis supervisor, but it requires specific commitment (from both you and the student) to stay in touch throughout the project. When the student is part of your scholarly work, the challenge (as with graduate students and postdocs) is to integrate them while carving out a project that is sufficiently their own. While it is common in these cases to delegate daily supervisory responsibility over the student to an advanced graduate student or postdoc, please remember that actual thesis supervision should not be delegated. Any non-adjunct faculty member who has the thesis honors adviser's approval — on behalf of the department — is able to serve as a thesis supervisor.

Thesis supervision is time-intensive, especially at a time of the year (middle and end of spring semester) when faculty have many competing demands on their time. When deciding whether or not to accept the thesis supervisor role, please consider the entire timeline. You are entitled to require intermediate deadlines, and an earlier deadline for the final draft, to accommodate your schedule, but this should be agreed upon before any commitment about thesis supervision is finalized. There are four procedural deadlines set by the Honors College in the thesis process — thesis proposal, thesis check-in, thesis format review, and final submission — but these are not a substitute for deadlines set between thesis supervisor and student for progress along the way. In particular, you and the thesis honors adviser (see below) must receive the final draft well in advance of the submission deadline, so your required or suggested changes can be incorporated. You must be available to sign the thesis cover page prior to the submission deadline, or to otherwise convey your approval to the Schreyer Honors College pending your signature.

In an age of electronic communication, it is tempting to commit to thesis supervision even if you won't be on campus for much of the time, because of sabbatical or other planned absence. Our experience is that these scenarios, while usually successful, present a higher risk of difficulties and even non-completion. While we appreciate the willingness of faculty to consider thesis supervision while on sabbatical or leave, please consider your best interests and those of the student before making the commitment.

If you are on the tenure track, please consult with your department before making a commitment to supervise an honors thesis. Again, we appreciate your willingness to consider thesis supervision, but by making a fully informed decision you are looking out for the student's interest and your own.

Following Graduate School guidelines, faculty who are retired or emeritus at the time of the thesis proposal may not supervise honors theses. Faculty who will move to retired or emeritus status over the course of the thesis process (after submission of the proposal) may supervise theses, with the approval of the department via the thesis honors adviser (see below), but this is a serious commitment that you should not make unless you are absolutely willing to fulfill the role with the same level of commitment as currently-employed faculty. The Honors College reserves the right to review any proposal along these lines.

Schreyer Scholars as a group are among the most capable undergraduates at Penn State or anywhere else, and may even be superior to many graduate students in terms of raw ability, but they are still undergraduates. This, and our expectation that Schreyer Scholars graduate on-time rather than staying on solely for thesis work, should be taken into account in determining whether the initial thesis proposal is appropriate, and whether the final submission is acceptable.

While the SHC is in no position to set standards about thesis quality or the pace of thesis work in most cases, we have encouraged colleges and individual departments to develop thesis guides that convey local expectations to students and thesis supervisors. More generally, we convey to students that the honors thesis is public and forever: it's in the Penn State Libraries online catalog, and housed in a special full-text database . We likewise tell students that while it’s useful to look at past theses in their area on that database, any given thesis might have been barely adequate and therefore not a good aspirational goal; they should instead look at several theses, and as thesis supervisor you may want to refer students to theses you consider examples of high-quality work.

While the thesis is primarily between the student and the thesis supervisor, there is one other significant formal role. The thesis honors adviser must approve the initial thesis proposal and the final thesis submission. Unlike the thesis supervisor, the thesis honors adviser has a pre-existing Schreyer Honors College role as honors adviser, someone who works with Schreyer Scholars on a regular basis to guide their overall academic progress. Sometimes a student proposes thesis work for honors outside his or her primary major; in these cases the student should contact the Academic Affairs Office for guidance.

The role of the thesis honors adviser, at the beginning and end of the process, is to serve as a “second set of eyes” to guarantee the adequacy of the student’s work. More specifically, the thesis honors adviser is the gatekeeper for the “area of honors” that all theses must have; a thesis might be impressive, but it might not have enough history or biomedical engineering or finance, in terms of content, sources, and methods, to justify the required “Honors in -----“ on the transcript and diploma. In general, this is a pro forma matter since as thesis supervisor you are mindful of disciplinary expectations, but in some cases you might be supervising a thesis to be submitted for an area of honors that isn’t quite your own. Note that a student may have more than one area of honors for a thesis, in which case the thesis proposal and final submission must be approved by one thesis honors adviser in each area (a thesis may have only one thesis supervisor). Also, it sometimes happens that you are both thesis supervisor and thesis honors adviser, especially in smaller departments. In that case, you and the student should agree upon a tenure-line faculty member in your department to serve as “Reader,” in effect an ad hoc thesis honors adviser.

Typically the thesis honors adviser does not work with the student throughout the process as the thesis supervisor does, but he or she should have ample time to review the final draft and suggest (or, if appropriate, demand) changes before approving the thesis. The SHC has recently asked thesis honors advisers to take a somewhat greater role in keeping tabs on thesis progress, but not to the point of diluting the all-important relationship between the student and thesis supervisor.

We expect Schreyer Scholars entering their final year to write well enough to make themselves understood according to disciplinary standards, and except for areas of honors where style is integral to overall value of the work (the clearest example would be a creative writing submission for honors in English), we suggest that you place a premium on content and clarity. You should require a relatively early installment of written work, most commonly the literature review, to get an early indication of any issues with the student’s writing. If you see problems but you’re not eager to work with them in that capacity — which we don’t consider a core responsibility of thesis supervision — please keep in mind that there are resources at Penn State starting with the Writing Center , so please refer students there. Campuses outside University Park should all have local resources for writing improvement.

While most theses proceed relatively smoothly, every year the SHC’s Academic Affairs Office is made aware of several cases where they don’t, and we assume there are other cases that we’re not aware of. Sometimes the student simply lacks the commitment (or, less commonly, the ability) to complete the project adequately, while sometimes the thesis supervisor has unreasonable expectations derived from graduate thesis supervision (see above, “Thesis Expectations”). Sometimes it’s just a personality conflict, which is why we remind students to look at compatibility and not just expertise when choosing to a thesis supervisor. Likewise, you should feel empowered to say no to a student if you have doubts about them, although we suggest that you consult with their honors adviser so you’re not making a snap decision.

If the final draft requires, in your opinion, significant revisions especially with regard to core chapters (as opposed to introduction and conclusion), this suggests insufficient communication throughout the process. There are no ideal solutions at this point — it’s unrealistic for the student to make significant changes with limited time, but a thesis that doesn’t meet legitimate quality standards can’t be approved — so our goal is to make these situations as rare as possible. While it is permissible for students to defer graduation, most commonly from May to August, solely to complete the thesis, that is not an option for many students. We present these scenarios to you to convey the importance of avoiding them!

The financial viability of honors thesis research and creative activity across the University depends on most students either not having significant expenses, or having those expenses met within their department or lab: either through actual funding (money to the student) or through the department or lab assuming the expenses. The SHC has very limited resources to fund students in their thesis work, and our preference is to devote those resources to truly independent projects that aren’t integrated into ongoing (and funded) labs. Please consider, jointly with the student, what kind of resources the proposed thesis will require, whether materials, testing, travel, compensation to survey respondents, or anything else; also consider what the funding options are, whether from your resources or elsewhere.

The Schreyer Honors College does ask, in the thesis proposal, whether the proposed work requires IRB or IACUC review and whether approval has been granted. However, we are not in a position to make those determinations, or to follow up about them. As thesis supervisor you have principal responsibility for your student’s adherence to the letter and spirit of Penn State and outside requirements in this regard.

As noted above, theses are “published” online with the University Libraries. The SHC is willing to delay that process by up to two years if there is a patent or publication pending; we will not delay for proprietary or classified material, which should not be included in the thesis.

Thesis Honors Adviser

The thesis is the culmination of honors education at Penn State, and while the thesis supervisor is the principal faculty role in the thesis process, the thesis honors adviser is very important at two key moments — the thesis proposal and the final thesis submission.

Permanent Role

Situational role, overall role, grading the thesis, different advisers, honors in a graduate area.

The permanent (i.e. in all cases) role of the thesis honors adviser is to review the thesis proposal and final thesis submission for:

• Overall quality
• Specific fulfillment of the disciplinary expectations for a thesis in the major

The thesis honors adviser is the gatekeeper, on behalf of the major, for what “With Honors in [major]” means. We distinguish between these two judgments, overall and specific, because a thesis might be an impressive piece of work but not sufficiently reflective of the field for which it’s submitted for honors. That is one reason why scrutiny of the thesis proposal is especially important.

Note: For purposes of this discussion, “major” is shorthand for “area of honors” which may be a major, a uniquely-named minor, or a uniquely-named graduate program. These situations are discussed below.

When reviewing the thesis proposal, you are also reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed thesis supervisor. Only tenure-line faculty, or equivalently credentialed and experienced non-tenure-line faculty, may supervise honors theses. If you have doubts or concerns, please contact the Academic Affairs Office .

Additionally, the thesis honors adviser is responsible for monitoring thesis progress by periodically consulting with the Scholar and the thesis supervisor. If the major does not have a uniform calendar for thesis progress, as part of its thesis guide, the thesis honors adviser should set expectations for each thesis writer in consultation with the thesis supervisor. As you can see, it is far preferable to establish a uniform calendar via a thesis guide available to all students! Early in the final semester, the thesis honors adviser should specifically consult with the Scholar and thesis supervisor about the timeline for submission of the final draft, and the thesis supervisor should be specifically asked about any travel plans, grant deadlines, or other issues that might complicate the successful culmination of the thesis. Likewise, the thesis honors adviser should look at his or her own commitments later in the semester.

The thesis honors adviser should exercise special vigilance in those cases where the Scholar’s day-to-day thesis work takes place under delegated rather than direct supervision, for instance in a lab where the student interacts more with graduate students and postdocs. On the other end of the spectrum, in humanities fields where the student is working independently for long periods, the thesis honors adviser should follow up to ensure that the student is in contact with the thesis supervisor.

Our website has important information about the thesis: what we tell our students about it, and what they say about it. In particular, our thesis guides are our official guidance about the thesis process. While it is written for students, we invite you to review it since it discusses what students can legitimately expect from their thesis experience.

The situational role of the thesis honors adviser is to mediate any conflicts between the Scholar and the thesis supervisor. While the Schreyer Honors College, specifically the Associate Dean, is willing to participate in these discussions and should be made aware of any problems, the thesis honors adviser as a faculty colleague is best-positioned to handle conflicts without escalating the situation further.

For both of these roles, it is important that the thesis honors adviser possess a solid understanding of the expectations for an undergraduate honors thesis in the major. In some cases the thesis supervisor, because of a lack of experience working with undergraduates or because of excessive expectations about honors students, has graduate-level expectations for the thesis; while this is a legitimate aspirational goal in many areas, it is by definition an inappropriate standard for approving or rejecting a completed thesis. At the other end of the spectrum, the thesis supervisor might have unacceptably lax standards, or might wish to get out of a bad situation by approving a substandard final product. In both cases the thesis honors adviser’s role is to enforce appropriate standards, although we recognize that there is no way to require a thesis supervisor to sign something that he or she refuses to sign.

The best and only way to minimize all of these problems, whether substantive (about thesis progress or quality) or logistical (availability to review and approve), is for the thesis honors adviser to enforce clear expectations from the outset (thesis proposal), and throughout the process. This is much easier when there is a departmental or college thesis guide, so if your unit doesn’t yet have one, please consider writing one in consultation with your departmental colleagues and (if desired) the SHC.

Note: Many majors assign professional advisers as lower-division honors advisers, and many majors assign non-tenure-line faculty as upper-division honors advisers. Thesis honors advising is, by rule and by common sense, always a faculty role. Scholars must be reassigned from professional to faculty honors advisers no later than the start of third year. Non-tenure-line faculty may serve as upper-division honors advisers, and therefore as thesis honors advisers, only with the approval of the SHC Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Because the thesis honors adviser must deal with the thesis supervisor from a position of equal authority and without fear of repercussions (beyond the inevitable awkwardness), only the most senior and research-accomplished non-tenure-line faculty will be approved for upper-division honors advising.

The thesis itself is not graded, but the SHC would like all theses to carry between 3 and 6 graded credits of honors independent research credits (typically 494H though there is still some variation across departments). In most departments the instructor of record for thesis credits is the thesis supervisor, but in some departments there is a single instructor of record for all thesis credits and that person consults with thesis supervisors to determine the grade. As with any other course, this is a departmental rather than SHC function.

There are times when a Scholar's thesis honors adviser is not the same as their regular honors adviser. This can happen when the student:

• Has concurrent majors and seeks honors in a major that's not where they receive honors advising
• Seeks honors in their minor
• Seeks honors in an area in which they're neither majoring nor minoring

What all three scenarios have in common is that the thesis honors adviser may have no prior association with the student, so it is the student’s responsibility to consult with the would-be thesis honors adviser before submitting the thesis proposal. This is both a professional courtesy and a practical necessity, because there are limits to the student’s right to pursue honors in any area:

First-Year Entering Scholars

First-year entering Scholars may pursue honors in any area they’re majoring in, as long as they follow the major’s prescribed preparation for thesis writers.

Scholars Enrolling After the First Year

Scholars who join the Honors College in their second or third year may only pursue honors in the major for which they were admitted to the Honors College, unless they secure the permission of the honors adviser (in multi-adviser majors, the designated lead honors adviser) in the would-be area. The Honors College knows from experience that some majors are willing to grant this change while others are not, but we always direct student inquiries to the appropriate honors adviser. If the change is granted, this must be communicated directly from the appropriate honors adviser to the College’s advising coordinator so the change can be made in our system before the student files the thesis proposal.

Regardless of how they entered the Honors College, Scholars proposing a thesis for honors in a major that’s not their own, or a minor (whether their own or not), should consult with the appropriate honors adviser before committing to the thesis project with a thesis supervisor. Local policies about non-majors pursuing honors vary by department, and while the Honors College claims no role in these policies, we believe that “unique minors” (those without a matching major, like Global Health) should offer honors to Scholars pursuing that minor. For minors that are reduced versions of majors (like Economics or Physics), it should depend on the individual student and on the “carrying capacity” of the department’s faculty and facilities.

The SHC recognizes “majors, minors, and graduate programs” as valid areas of honors for the thesis, and there are a handful of graduate programs that may come up, because they have no similarly-named major or minor. For students pursuing an Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate degree (IUG) and who submit a single thesis at the master’s level to satisfy both graduate degree and undergraduate honors requirements, the undergraduate area of honors can be either the undergraduate major or the graduate program, if differently named and more appropriate. (After all, the student is concurrently receiving the graduate degree.) For non-IUG students pursuing solely an undergraduate degree, the SHC encourages graduate program directors to permit honors and act as thesis honors advisers (or to designate one) only if there is no appropriate undergraduate area and the student has some degree of appropriate coursework (though not necessarily at the 500 level) in the field. Sometimes students seek out the graduate area because it is slightly more specific or impressive-sounding, but we remind them that the title of the thesis conveys that.

The honors women's studies class I'm taking right now is phenomenal. Every day I go to the class is really eye-opening. I don't know if I would have gotten that experience without being in Schreyer. Tara Golthi ' 20 Media Studies

How to build a relationship with your supervisor before the thesis work begins

Starting the lines of communication early will lighten your emotional load by having someone already in your corner once the writing starts.

• Post a comment

The most important relationship you’ll have throughout your graduate school career is with your thesis supervisor. Your supervisor is the person who shepherds you through your thesis project, checks in on your progress and gives you advice on the direction of your research. However, it is important to start developing a relationship with your supervisor early on – before your thesis work even begins. You will be facing a lot of new hurdles as you begin your graduate career that are difficult to tackle alone. While other students can, and should, be a strong support network, your supervisor is the one who can support you in all areas of your program.

Determine what you need from the relationship

Before you meet with your supervisor, and before your studies begin, it is useful to determine what you need from your supervisor-supervisee relationship. This will vary depending on your field, program and thesis project type. If your work is in a natural scientific field and is lab-based, you will likely be working closely with your supervisor from the beginning. However, if you are in a humanities program that begins with courses (and thesis research starting later), then you may not need to be in frequent communication with your supervisor for a while.

However, a supervisor can still help you with more than just your final project. Ideally, your supervisor can also guide you through all aspects of the graduate experience. For example, some supervisors will advise their students on what elective classes to choose to best complement the research they will be doing for their thesis. Your supervisor will know the research being done by their colleagues within the department and can recommend courses so that you have the most stimulating classwork possible.

The next potential step of your academic process you will need to discuss with your supervisor is grant applications. If you are applying for a federal or provincial grant such as SSHRC or FRQSC , you will likely require your supervisor’s guidance to put together a well-written proposal. As these grants require an explanation of your research project, it is important to keep your supervisor up to date on your thesis plans. Even if the initial proposal in the grant application is subject to change (as many of these grants allow) your supervisor can help determine what information needs to be included. Further, since these grants require reference letters, your supervisor may want to sign off on what you are proposing, putting them in a better position to write a more robust letter for you.

Plan the initial meeting

Next, when planning the initial meeting, you’ll want to determine whether you would like a face-to-face meeting or a Zoom call. A Zoom call may be best if your supervisor is stretched between many responsibilities such as field research, running a lab, instructing, etc. However, you may not get as strong of a sense of their communication style and the conversation may be a bit more stilted. If this is a concern for you, you can instead try to request an in-person meeting. While this will may be harder to organize before the semester starts, having your initial meeting face-to-face can help you feel more comfortable around your supervisor if you are nervous about starting this relationship.

Discuss your communication style

The next step is to figure out what your academic communication style is. While understanding this will help you in all manner of academic and professional settings, it is especially important to make sure the expectations of your relationship with your supervisor are clear to both of you, which will help avoid any problematic miscommunications down the road.

Would you like a more sporadic email relationship? Longer monthly meetings? Determining this will help you and your supervisor know the best ways to contact one another. For some, a more informal email chain is useful for quick questions, but it can also feel overwhelmingly constant. Others like scheduled meetings to debrief, as it can help you feel more productive to reflect on the work of an entire month. However, this may also be too infrequent at certain points of the graduate process. Discuss what will work best for both of you.

Plan a tentative timeline for your thesis

Even though you have just started your program, it can still be helpful to discuss, in broad strokes, what you want the next few years to look like. In this conversation, you can talk about when you would ideally like to have major milestones of your project done (i.e. proposal defense, data collection, final defense). Even though nothing is set in stone, and research tends to take longer than you imagine, your supervisor can help set healthy expectations for how your process will look. Knowing your ideal schedule will help both of you orient where your work efforts should go. Further, in this conversation, make sure your supervisor knows your weekly schedule so you can coordinate with each other over the entirety of your degree.

It is important to start building a strong supervisor relationship early, when you are less bogged down by thesis work, so once that time comes, they know how to support you. Starting this line of communication early will lighten your emotional load by having someone already in your corner once the thesis writing starts.

Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2019

The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study

• Leila Bazrafkan 1 ,
• Alireza Yousefy 2 ,
• Mitra Amini 1 &
• Nikoo Yamani 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  19 , Article number:  320 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

9968 Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Supervision is a well-defined interpersonal relationship between the thesis supervisors and their students. The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns which can explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors. We aimed at developing a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

We have conducted a qualitative grounded theory study in 20 universities of medical sciences in Iran since 2017 by using purposive, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling and enrolled 84 participants. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Based on the encoding approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998), the data underwent open, axial, and selective coding by constant comparative analysis. Then, the core variables were selected, and a model was developed.

We could obtain three themes and seven related subthemes, the central variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the subthemes, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions during expertise process which generated the supervisors’ competence development in research supervision consisted maturation; also, seven subthemes as curious observation, evaluation of the reality, poorly structured rules, lack of time, reflection in action, reflection on action, and interactive accountability emerged which explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors.

Conclusions

As the core variable in the expertise process, accountability must be considered in expertise development program planning and decision- making. In other words, efforts must be made to improve responsibility and responsiveness.

Peer Review reports

Supervision is a well-defined term in the interpersonal relationship between thesis supervisors and students. A supervisor is designated to assist the student’s development in terms of their research project [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Faculty members supervise the students because qualified supervision leads to success on the part of the student, and it has moral, reputational, and financial outcomes for the institution. Supervisors are expected to train students to gain competence in areas such as specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills [ 4 ]. Expertise is derived from the three essential elements of knowledge, experience, and the ability to solve problems in society [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. .According to Dreyfus, acquisition of expertise or practical wisdom represents a higher level of “self-actualization.” At this point, one reaches a level in which they can flourish in their talents and abilities. This enables the teachers to function in scientific communities and multicultural environments [ 7 ].

Wiscer has identified three stages in the thesis supervision process and describes the duties of the supervisors in each of them [ 8 ]. Pearson and Brew state that maturation in specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills are the major areas that need to be promoted in the student. Moreover, these are the generic processes in which the supervisors should be involved for efficacious supervision if they aim to help the students develop in various institutional, disciplinary and professional settings; acquire appropriate expertise and features needed for employment; and make an outline of what might form a flexible professional development program for supervisors in this setting [ 3 ]. Vereijken et al. emphasized novice supervisors’ approaches to reach expertise in supervision and explained the relationship between practice and dilemmas among novice supervisors [ 9 ].

.Despite the importance of expertise in higher education and particularly research supervision, research abilities are not considered as one of the priorities in the employment of the academic staff. Furthermore, the newly employed faculty members are often involved in teaching, administrative tasks, and services in health care; this inhibits them from expertise attainment in other aspects such as research supervision [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In this regard, Malekafzali believes that in the area of research activities, the faculty members have serious weaknesses in defining the problem, choosing the appropriate method for research, analyzing the data, interpreting the results, and publishing scientific articles. Besides, there is a lack of coherent and compiled training programs which can enhance their research capabilities [ 13 ].

One of the most important factors contributing to the thesis and research quality is the process of developing expertise in supervisors’ research supervision. Most studies in our country have focused on research abilities during the research, and fewer studies have focused on the process of expertise acquisition in thesis supervision, and no actual model has been proposed for this [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The quantitative researches could not explain exactly how and through which process the faculty members, as thesis supervisors, become experts in thesis supervision since the expertise process is multi-factorial and has many unknown aspects. Considering the effective role of qualitative research in clarifying ambiguous and unknown aspects, we chose the grounded theory approach for this study [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. This theory will be used when the investigator intends to determine the patterns of actions and social interactions needed for the development of expertise by specific groups of people in a specific setting [ 17 , 18 ].

In this study, we aimed to identify the themes that explain the expertise development process among thesis supervisors in Iran, and also to develop a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

This study was carried out in 20 universities of medical sciences with different ranks in Iran because universities are the places where supervisors and students interact purposefully to discourse the needs of experts on specific occasions and in specific conditions. In these universities, different students study with various disciplines. There are three types of universities in Iran. Type 1 universities are the ones with the most facilities, faculties, research presentations, international collaborations, and scientific outcomes. The second rank belongs to type 2, and the one with the least mentioned qualities is type 3 universities. All three types of universities were included in this study. In all these courses, writing a thesis is one of the requirements with the same role and regulation. The majority of the students in this research project were in the late stages of both undergraduate and postgraduate educational programs within the same function and regulation.

Study design

We conducted this qualitative study based on a grounded theory approach in a systematic form [ 17 , 18 ]. Grounded theory is a symbolic interaction which is derived from systematic data collection during the research process. In this strategy, collecting and analyzing data and the theory derived from the data have a close association [ 17 , 19 ]. The investigator’s purpose in using grounded theory is to describe and clarify a phenomenon in the social condition and to identify the essential processes working within [ 17 ].

Participants

In this study, 84 subjects including 56 faculty members of medical sciences, 20 undergraduate and postgraduate students (medical students, MS of Science, Ph.D. and residents), and eight managers in the field of research supervision participated. Using purposive sampling, snowball sampling with maximum variation, we selected the participants from a variety of academic ranks with different work experiences, as the key informants in thesis supervisors. Then, to continue the sampling, we used theoretical sampling and data saturation. The inclusion criterion was 5 years of work experience in thesis supervision, and the exclusion criterion was the unwillingness to participate in the study. Firstly, we collected data in Shiraz University with the help of a research supervisor who is known for his high quality of supervision and then data gathering was initiated in the university of Isfahan. There were 34 key informants from the two universities and 22 individuals from other universities. Students were selected based on their willingness to participate.

Theoretical sampling was used next to develop the tentative theory. The basis for theoretical sampling was the queries that emerged during data analysis. At this stage, the researcher interviewed the supervisor, administrators, and students. Theoretical sampling facilitated in verifying the supervisors’ responses and credibility of categories and resulted in more conceptual density. Data saturation was obtained when no new data emerged in the last five interviews. Therefore, data gathering by interviews was terminated.

Data collection

We collected the data primarily by semi-structured interviews from September 2017 to September 2018. The participants were recognized with unknown codes based on their field of work and setting, and each participant was interviewed in one or two sessions. Having obtained the participants’ informed consent, we recorded the interviews and they were transcribed verbatim immediately. The interviews began with open-ended general questions such as, “What did you experience during research supervision?” and then the participants were asked to describe their perceptions regarding their expertise process. Leading questions were also used to deeply explore the conditions, processes, and other factors that participants recognized as significant issues. The interview was based mostly on the questions which came up during the interview. On average, each interview lasted for an hour, during which field notes and memos were taken. At the end of each session, the participants were asked to give an opinion on other important topics which did not come up during the interview, followed by data collection and analysis which are simultaneously done in grounded theory; analytic thought and queries that arose from one interview were carried to the next one [ 20 ].

The data were also collected by unstructured observations of the educational atmosphere in the laboratory, and the faculty member and students’ counseling offices. These observations lasted 5 weeks, during which the faculties and students’ interactions and the manner of supervision were closely monitored. The observation was arranged to sample the maximum variety of research supervisor activity for some faculty member who is known to be a good or poor supervisor and detailed organized field notes were kept.

Also, we used the field notes to reflect emergent analytic concepts as a source of three angulations of data, frequently reconsidering the data, and referring to field notes in the context of each participant’s explanation. Analysis of the field notes facilitated in shaping contextual conditions and clarifying variations in the supervisors’ responses in each context. This led to the arrangement of several assumptions in the effect of contexts.

Data analysis

We simultaneously performed data collection and analysis. We read the scripts carefully several times and then entered them into MAXQDA (version10). We collected and analyzed the data practically and simultaneously by using a constant comparative method. Data were analyzed based on the 3-stage coding approach, including open, axial, and selective coding by Strauss and Corbin In the open coding stage, we extracted the basic concepts or meaning units from the gathered information. Then, more general concepts were formed by grouping similar concepts into one theme. The themes became clearer throughout the interviews. Then, the constructs of them were compared with each other to form tentative categories. After that, we conducted axial coding by using the guidelines given in Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) Paradigm Model [ 21 ]. The extracted themes (codes) in the previous (open coding) stage were summarized in 3 main themes during the axial coding stage, and then the core variables were selected in the selective coding stage [ 20 ]. To generate a reasonable theory to the community, a grounded theorist needs to condense the studied happenings a the precise sequence. To check the data against categories, the researcher asks questions related to certain categories and returns to the data to seek evidence. After developing a theory, the researcher is required to confirm the theory by comparing it with existing theories found in the recently available research [ 21 ]. We finalized the model after 5 days; during this time, we explained the relations between subcategories and the core category for realizing theoretical saturation and clarifying the theoretical power of the analysis explained about work as narration.

In terms of accuracy improvement, we used the Lincoln and Guba’s criteria, including credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability [ 22 , 23 ].

To increase credibility, we collected data from different universities in Iran, and their credibility was also confirmed by three reviewers and experts in qualitative research. Also, some of the participants rechecked the data and the investigators’ description and interpretation of their experiences carefully. Prolonged engagement and tenacious observation facilitated the data credibility. In this way, the process of data collection and analysis took 12 months. Data triangulation and method triangulation also confirmed credibility [ 20 ]. The use of the maximum variation sampling method contributed to the dependability and conformability of data. Furthermore, once the explanation of the phenomenon was full, it was returned for confirmation to 3 participants of each university, and they validated the descriptions. Finally, to attain transferability, we adequately described the data in this article, so that a judgment of transferability can be made by readers.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were informed about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

In this study, the mean age of the faculty members and students was 44.34 ± 14.60 and 28.54 ± 2.38 years, respectively. All the faculty members and most of the students were married. Only three students were single. Three themes and seven interrelated sub-themes emerged from the data (Table  1 ). The main variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the categories, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions of the expertise process are displayed in a model (Fig.  1 ).

The process of expertise attainment in research supervisor model

Theme 1: engagement

In this theme, the initial phase of expertise, the supervisor starts to observe the others’ behavior in the students’ supervision and guidance based on the practical and cognitive skills previously acquired. They attempt to recognize the different needs based on the amount of their motivation and previous competence so that the models become important for them, and they recognize the scope of the needs based on their importance. Then, they try to understand the needs and values of real thesis supervision in this context. In this theme, two sub-themes, curious observation, and evaluation with reality emerged.

Curious observation

In this sub-theme, several concepts such as personal interest, self-awareness, ability to meet the students’ needs, ability to detect weaknesses in research skills, and observation of role models in this area act as the impellent factors in expertise attainment in research supervision.

Regarding personal interest, a successful faculty member in the area of research supervision said:

“…In my experience, faculties must be selected from those who have curious personalities as well as being good observers, first of all. In this way, they will have the appropriate intrinsic character to acquire knowledge in guidance and supervision)…” (Faculty member N0.3)

According to our participants, the most important intrinsic motivation is the desire to update the content knowledge and skills in research supervision. An experienced professor said:

“ … The knowledge gap between the new and old generations of faculty members is what forced me to update my knowledge...and it has been detected by myself…” (Faculty member N0.3).

Another important intrinsic motivation is the ability to meet the educational and research needs of students. However, usually these needs are combined; one of the faculty members put it:

“…I would like to be an expert in this process (thesis supervision) to meet my students’ needs. Because I have seen and felt this need many times before…” (Faculty member N0.12).

Since the publication of research directly affects the promotion of a faculty, some professors seek skills that are practical in article publication such as several statistical and basic skills for thesis writing. The participants considered the self-awareness and consciousness elements as very important. Through consciousness, one can better understand their needs.

Evaluation with reality

In this sub-theme, in the initial phase maintaining academic dignity and competition motivates the faculty members to obtain expertise in research supervision. At this point, the supervisor evaluates themself and their potentialities considering more precise features and acquired information (or data), so that they can find the distance between the optimal state and the existing conditions. They also evaluate the others’ potentialities in this field realistically and compete. Good supervision is then highlighted for them. Based on the supervisors’ experience, at this stage, they are seriously engaged in evaluation and competition.

Another motivation was obtaining academic and social promotion. Although the number of theses supervised by them can affect the academic promotion of supervisors, this effect is insignificant. The real motivation is maintaining academic dignity and competition amongst peers. A member of the clinical faculties stated:

“ … To enhance academic dignity, a faculty member should master various skills such as patient care, teaching, educational skills, and last but not least, research supervision. I got involved in research and thesis supervision because I felt I should not be left behind…” ( Faculty member N0.17).

At this stage, the junior supervisor tries to increase the cognitive knowledge in research supervision such as increasing specific knowledge of the discipline, planning, directing of a project effectively, and developing good interpersonal skills presented in research supervision.

Theme 2: supervision climate

In this theme, we describe the contextual factor which changes the process of expertise attainment in thesis supervisors. The result of the study reflects some concerns about the relationship between individuals in the context in that they interact purposefully but with barriers. The supervision climate in the thesis supervision process in this theme led to the emergence of two sub-themes, challenging shortcomings and role ambiguity. These challenges include poorly structured rules and regulations which, in turn, can cause confusion and role ambiguity.

Challenging shortcomings

This report shows that contextual factor plays a significant role in promoting the quality of a thesis in a university, but the process is faced with altered challenges such as inadequate resources, inadequate time, and ineffective evaluation and rule and regulation deficit. These challenges include the following. Most faculty members and students have experienced these shortcomings.

Various inadequate resources, such as access to new and online journals, laboratory equipment were one of the challenges for supervisors in certain aspects which required more competency, and the constraints on communication with the other academic centers worldwide undermine the sense of competition and hinder the effort put in to become an expert. One of the students said: “… I see how difficult it is to gain access to a good article or laboratory materials in this situation …we try, but it just isn’t possible...” (Faculty member N0.17).

Based on our results, the sudden changes in personal life, work position, and organizational change can affect the path to expertise. These changes such as marriage, work overload, admission of students over the capacity, new rules and regulation of scholar citizenship, promotion and so on can have both positive and negative impacts, depending on whether they facilitate or restrict the professional development of faculties as supervisors. For instance, an increase in student admission causes work overload, which results in neglecting self-improvement.

“…As you know, we are over- loaded with students (they have increased the number of admissions), which is beyond our capacity. This means that most of our time will be dedicated to teaching. Self-improvement is difficult due to lack of time…” (Faculty member N0.6).

Role ambiguity

Poorly structured supervision can occur where there is an ambiguous context of supervision structure, supervisors and students’ roles. Most participants, as faculty members, managers, and students have experienced some difficulties in this regard, due to poorly structured rules(EDITORS NOTE; do you mean ‘rules and regulations ‘here) and regulations and its impact on the thesis supervision. It is not only the rules themselves but also the way they are implemented. One of the faculty members expressed confusion over the rules related to the dissertation as follows:

“…It should be made clear what I must do exactly. It is obvious regarding supervision on the work of students; there are not the same expectations from an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and a professor. Most problems occur as a result of the gap in legislation; For example, the rules imply a full Professor does not need a statistical consult, while many supervisors like me do not have enough knowledge and skills in statistical analysis...” (Faculty member N0.1).

Failure to implement the rules also increases the sense of this ambiguity, and there are no specific rules for verifying capability and audits to determine inadequate experts in thesis supervision. The role ambiguity or unclear roles and responsibilities of the supervisor and student in the thesis process were other limitations that were emphasized by the majority of participants. A faculty member stated:

“… Supervisors have different roles during the thesis process. To enhance this process, one must exactly know one’s responsibilities. For instance, in the beginning, the supervisor should guide the students through the process of finding a suitable research topic, but if the teacher's role is unclear, then instead of guiding they may actually choose the topic, and if so, the students will be prevented from exploring, using their creative thinking, and improving their problem-solving abilities…” (Faculty member N0.1).

Various performance

Based on the participants’ experiences, in this situation in which there are inadequate resources and organizational and social problems, some faculty members are well-trained in the field of supervision. One of the senior faculty members said: “It is my honor to mention that despite the existence of many obstacles, I have been able to train well-educated students, who have become researchers and contribute to the development of science in my country.”

One of the most important causes of poor performance is ineffective evaluation. Based on the participants experiences, two main problems can result in ineffective evaluation. First of all is the inadequate feedback from the supervisor which leads to unmotivated learners and the second one is lack of feedback from the stakeholders and educational institutes which in turn diminishes the supervisor’s efforts toward self-improvement. These can lead to poor performance both in students and supervisors.

In one of the Ph.D. student’s words:

“…In this system, there is no supervision on the supervisors; there is no control or evaluation of their work. Also, the supervisors don't get feedback from their students during the research process, and there is no third person who investigates whether the report is real or not…” (student N0. 7).

Evidence from data suggests that an unfair judgment and evaluation of academic theses are other problems in the process of acquiring the merit of teachers. If there isn’t proper evaluation, students and supervisors would not have the right standards to correct their performance.

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student had experienced:

“…I was so thrilled that my thesis supervisor was an experienced, older and well-known professor, but unfortunately, I soon found out that not only was his scientific knowledge outdated, but also he lacked the necessary supervision skills, so he let the students do all the work unsupervised. He did not take any responsibility during the process…” (Student N0.4).

Another point which leads to poor performance is the fact that some faculty members do not comprehend the main purpose of the thesis writing process; actually, they do not know the difference between teaching and guiding in the project or thesis supervision. One of the basic science supervisors said: “… Some faculties consider a thesis as research work and not a lesson in which research methodology should be taught...” (Faculty member N0.5).

Performing poorly along with ignoring professional ethics can also lead to increased tension and stress in student-teacher relationships. This can result in despondency and frustration in both students and teachers and create a vicious cycle of inefficient supervisors who will train inefficient students or future supervisors.

One of the students put it this way:

“...I feel the absence of a supervisor in my research; I would have been more successful, and my results would have been better if I had had more guidance.” (Student N0.6).

Theme 3: maturation

In this theme, the secondary phase of expertise, the individual is emotionally involved and feels that success or failure is important. This is a stage in which the learner needs an integrated schedule to be competent, and as a result, success or failure will follow. The supervisors frequently think about personal promotion and takes action in this way. They try out different approaches, and sometimes due to disappointment and embarrassment they fail. Some individuals quit at this stage and never reach competence, or they have what may be called an artificial competence. And this does not mean that they are not considered to be well-known supervisors; rather, they know, as do the students, that they are not competent. At this stage, the supervisor attempts to acquire the identity of a researcher and tries to enhance his availability, and be dutiful, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic in research supervision. Along the lines of this theme, three sub-themes of Reflection in action, Reflection on action, and Interactive accountability emerged.

Reflection in action

In this sub-theme, the patterns of expertise development begin, and self-directed learning, participatory teaching and learning strategies through a hidden curriculum are considered. At this stage, the supervisor tries to follow self-directed learning, and the amount of time allocated to expertise acquirement seems to be one of the most important factors. In this regard, one stated:

“…My success in this case (research supervision) is, first of all, due to self-evaluation and self-effort. For instance, to be in control and take full responsibility, I think about everything related to the guidance of the students, and I felt the need to master every aspect of research, even the statistical skills needed for analysis…” (Faculty member N0.8).

The supervisors’ activities were divided into two groups: self-directed –learning strategy and gaining experience through individual effort. Expertise requires continuous interaction and experience. They evaluate their learning, and by this, they experience the manner of managing and allocating time for effective supervision. According to participants, the amount of time allocation for expertise seems to be one of the most important factors for self-directed learning and expertise acquirement.

The formal training workshops provided an opportunity for supervisors with similar terms and the same problems in terms of learning experiences, environmental features, students, and educational problems to come together in one place. Participants also considered the formal participatory teaching necessary since it can provide an opportunity for the peers to get together and exchange their experiences. As a clinical faculty member put it:

“…Collaborative strategies can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the facilitation of experience exchanges amongst teachers, peers, and colleagues and modeling the behavior of teachers and teaching workshops that emphasize the importance of their expertise in research supervision…” (Faculty member N0.1).

In our participants’ experience, this self-directed learning is effective if, and only if, it is done accompanied by proper training and participatory teaching. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. As an example, one of the students in this field said:

“…my supervisor was a great teacher and put in a lot of time and effort on my thesis supervision; however, due to his lack of research skills, I had to change my thesis proposal three times. However, after he participated in a training course at the University of Oxford, his progress was unbelievable and impressive…and I saw his expertise…” (Student N0.11).

One of the faculty members also quoted:

“…When the teachers feel a gap in their knowledge or skill, the university must provide a comfortable, appropriate, and easy way for learning them …” (Faculty member N0.10).

Regarding this subject, one of the Managers in this field stated:

“…Another improvement strategy is the use of interpersonal interactions among faculty members, these instructive interpersonal interactions among the faculty members in similar conditions make it possible to benefit from peers’ feedback …” (Manager N0.1).

A hidden curriculum strategy, like learning through trial and error can also affect the expertise process. One of the professors expressed:

“… Learning through trial and error is very effective; through the supervision of each thesis, we learn some of our mistakes and try not to remake them in the next one …” (Faculty member N0.3).

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student’s experience:

Reflection on action

The learner provides an integrated schedule for their competence and uses all the facilitators and facilities around them for further efficiency and promotion. This stage is named Conditional Self-efficacy by expertise experience. At this stage, the supervisor is considered a competent individual who can guide the students based on the experiences of specialized and non-specialized faculty members.

In this regard, one of the students said:

“…I can acknowledge that my supervisor functioned very impressively in this thesis, but guidance and supervision are not static; rather, it is an active process. To be a good supervisor, the faculty members should try to keep up to date and revise their attitudes, duties, and their specialty and knowledge. …” (Student N0.3).

According to the participants, at this stage the supervisors have achieved meta-competence and general characteristics or professional value; are able to guide the students and others; and develop characteristics such as acquiring specific knowledge of the discipline, especially well-organized knowledge, planning, directing of a project effectively, having good interpersonal skills, and being dutiful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic in research.

One of the PhD students states: “… My supervisor is typical of an expert. His ingenious inquiries, extraordinary attention to science and his personality have always been admired and he has been a role model for me…” (Student N0.6).

For example, the supervisors attend educational programs on scientific writing and thesis evaluation as well as ethics in research and apply them in team work. Gradually, their competency can enable them to function as a good supervisor for their students. At this stage, the supervisor develops so that they can respond due to discovery and intuition. These responses replace their dubious and unskilled reactions. The supervisor now reflects various stages of supervision and guidance. They take action, and in fact, a part of their reactions are achieved through observation and recognition. In this stage, they not only recognize what should be done but also distinguish how to achieve it with more precise discretion. A competent person does the appropriate task in the most appropriate time using the right platform.

The time period required for training or acquiring expertise varies from one person to another. Some individuals become experts very soon, whilst it takes others longer.. As one of the professors said:

“…In the beginning, I was too concerned with my responsibility as a thesis supervisor and was not sure what I should do. However, after ten years of experience, I have gained a sense of awareness which makes supervision easier for me. Of course, up to date knowledge and skill as to managing a thesis are always necessary. It took me about 12 years to reach where I am today. Furthermore, an individual who is expert at present, will not be so in two years, so I want to say that the expertise in thesis supervision in a continuum, which depends on the supervisor’s reflections on work and activity …” (Faculty member N0.15).

The continuous path of expertise in supervision can be affected by various factors. This has resulted in a range of expertise and performance in supervisors. This range and continuum is a theme that most of our participants agreed with. One of the managers revealed:

“…There is surely a continuum of expertise. We cannot deny the expert supervisors; however, the existence of those with poor supervising skills must also be acknowledged (in thesis supervision). There are those on whose ethics, honesty, and knowledge we can rely on. On the other hand, there are a few who are not as trustworthy as needed.” (Manager N0.1).

The core variable: interactive accountability

As shown in Fig. 1 , through this survey, we found that the core variable in thesis supervision process is the interactive accountability shaped by interactions of supervisors and students in an academic setting, so to enhance the accountability, each group must take responsibility and do his or her job. In this regard, one of the managers claimed:

“…When supervisors find themselves responsible, and the university officials recognize this responsibility, the supervisors are motivated to seek expertise and try to enhance their competencies and acquire learning strategies because of being accountable…” (Manager N0.2)

This means that teachers must be responsive to the needs of students, university and community. Accountability is a mutual interaction between the students and their supervisor, in other words, if the student is responsive to his duties, he creates motivation in his supervisor. One of the participants commented;

“…I've always tried to be a competent thesis supervisor, so that I have the ability to meet the needs of the community and university as well as students. I say to myself when I accept the supervision of a thesis, I should be well accountable for its results…” (Faculty member N0.32)

This study aimed at exploring the processes of expertise among thesis supervisors based on the experience of faculty members, students, and managers of Iranian universities of medical sciences. The section concludes with an explanation of how these themes are a cohesive relationship, which enables the expertise development of supervisors. It seems that the core variable in the expertise process is the concept of interactive accountability and efforts to acquire the capacity to respond to the students and academic needs. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. The importance of accountability and various types of ability in thesis supervision has also been emphasized by other studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. It was also mentioned as the major feature of the supervisor in other studies [ 26 , 27 ].

In this study, “accountability” emerged as the behavioral pattern through which the supervisors resolved their main concern of being an expert in being responsive to academic and students’ needs. Supervision training is complex since academic choices in the real world can depend on supervisor characteristics. The results of this study revealed that in the initial phase of supervision, observation, evaluation, and reflection in action and maturation stage in the secondary phase were the major themes that emerged. This result compared with Bandura’s social learning and self-efficacy theory was significant in similarity and difference. Bandura believes that achieving self-efficacy is one of the most important contributors to competence. In his model, he suggested four sources of self-efficacy, including previous accomplishments, vicarious experiences such as having a role model, verbal persuasion such as coaching and evaluative feedback, and emotional arousal [ 28 , 29 ]. Likewise, in this study, we found that the emotional arousals such as personal interest in cooperative learning, peer competition, meeting the needs of students, self-awareness and the need for upgrading are the significant factors for the faculties’ expertise. Also, our participants found that the utilization of previous experiences is the most effective method of achieving personal competence. However, this study indicates conditional expertise, which means if an expert’s information is not up to date and they do not make any effort in this regard, being an expert and having expertise is not a permanent condition.

This study also revealed that self-effort, workshops, and role models, as part of a hidden curriculum, are influential methods of teacher empowerment which agrees with the results of some studies such as those of Britzman et al. and Patel et al. Patel et al. have also suggested the importance of role modeling; they believe that modeling and observing other faculty members behavior is an effective tool for promoting and strengthening the sense of efficacy in learners [ 30 , 31 ].

Based on our study results, among the learning methods used in Iran, the collaborative education and problem-based learning is the widely accepted method which is preferred by most faculties. Therefore, cooperative and collaborative learning strategies can be used in educating the faculty members towards expertise in supervision, as revealed in other studies [ 32 , 33 ].

Lack of time is reported by supervisors to be one of the most common barriers in trying to become an expert and carry out respectable worthy supervision, and taking one’s time is acknowledged as a motivating factor for putting in more effort in thesis supervision [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

The effect of contextual factors is studied in several surveys [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Gillet et al. state that contextual and organizational factors play a key role in the competence of teachers in research supervision [ 36 ]. This study also showed that faculty expertise in thesis supervision was significantly affected by the impact of contextual interventional factors such as sudden changes, structural shortcomings, and educational environment. Based on our and other studies’ results, among the sudden changes, increased workload due to the increase in the student population has greatly affected expertise. Moreover, while an increase in the workload can lead to more experienced faculty members, it is very time-consuming and, therefore, reduces the chance to obtain new information and skills in thesis supervision [ 33 , 37 ].

Similar to our study, other studies such as those of Al-Naggar et al. and Yousefi et al. have also found insufficient monitoring and lack of formative evaluations to be one of the main obstacles in the thesis supervision process. Studies have indicated that to improve the supervision process, careful planning and incentive rules must be applied [ 5 , 34 ]. Similarly, our participants mentioned that rules and regulations which have resulted in the positive effect of research on scholarship and promotion had truly motivated them. Like our study, other studies in Iran have also found that the amount of time allocated to learning is one of the influential factors affecting the faculty members’ expertise [ 13 , 38 ]. A malfunctioning relationship between the student and supervisors can affect both of them negatively; that is, it can compel the students to misbehave and also reduce the teachers’ motivation to develop better skills. This malfunction may be due to the lack of constructive interactions or paternalism leadership in research supervision [ 39 , 40 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this study provided a conceptual framework that can be used in policy making and studies of expertise development in research supervision. This framework is based on the perception and experience of the majority of those involved in the thesis process. It also provides teachers with an opportunity to compare and share their experiences.

This model has three fields of experience, which yields a comprehensive gradient of the factors used for the development and progress of thesis supervision quality. In other words, it is a rational structure that makes an effort to cover a comprehensible number of stages, of concept, achievement, and impact or consequence. In other words, this model is a combination of a great number of items that help to recognize the present and future processes of expertise in thesis supervision, and future challenges in this area which predict results and impacts of supervisor’s knowledge, attitude and research supervision. Table one offers the categories and clarifications [ 17 ].

This study is based on our overall model of expertise attainment. This model reveals that specific personal efforts such as observation of prior knowledge, evaluation or self-assessments alongside the university contextual dynamics help to figure out how supervisors select their approaches and engagements, and respond carefully to their task, which in turn impacts the supervisors’ level of expertise and, finally, outcomes such as work and perseverance, which then help them to become an expert. Similar to the social learning theory of Bandura, this model also states that there is a mutual relationship between different parts that can mutually affect one another. For instance, faculty members have shown in various studies how one’s previous academic success and failure can affect the future levels of involvement and motivation. Based on the study aims, we focused on only three of the components of the model: observation, evaluation, and self-efficacy; in terms of motivational processes, we focused on four motivational components. The first is self-efficacy, defined as students’ judgments of supervisor abilities to carry out a task, and their beliefs about their ability to do so show the highest levels of academic achievement and also engagement in academic behaviors promoting learning.

Through the use of this grounded theory, we can begin to understand the supervisors’ challenges and why it may be difficult to become an expert in research supervision in practice. The junior supervisors curiously observe and evaluate their environment by reflection and in action and do their best to attain knowledge and skills in the supervision of the theses, so that they can reach maturation. They are mainly supported by prior knowledge of the research supervision, which they had acquired when they were students. The concept of “interactive accountability” refers to the fact that if the supervisor is responsive to the students’ needs, they can be an expert in supervision. If they cannot overcome the barriers and shortcomings such as lack of time, they will not attain expertise in thesis supervision.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This grounded theory study describes the main dimensions of expertise in research supervision from straight reports of a large qualitative sample ( n  = 84) which consists of thesis supervisors, from all Iranian universities in three different data collection phases. Like other qualitative research, the results of this study cannot be generalized; therefore, it is recommended that the researchers conduct further qualitative research in other contexts to support these findings.

Despite the above limitations, we believe that this model can be useful for supervisors in the thesis supervision area, not only in analyzing the supervisors’ experience of supervision and being an expert but also in recognizing the areas of intervention or development of teacher training.

Implications of the study

The findings of the present study will help administrators to choose the supervisor with definite criteria in medical sciences institutes and facilitate the expertise in the supervision process through elimination of the shortcomings and improvement of the educational climate. The supervisor’s interest, talent, and capabilities should be assessed at the beginning of their employment as academic staff. Supervisors should attend educational workshops for updating their knowledge about supervision. It is recommended that collaborative strategies and methods should be used, so that we can contribute to the process of becoming an expert. The assessment of supervisors’ functioning in supervising and provision of feedback can contribute to the process of expertise. Feedback received from students about their supervisors will improve the supervisor’s further expertise and capabilities. For future studies survey on the impact of successful models in thesis supervision, disclosure analysis studies about student and supervisor are recommended.

In this study, we aimed to find out how thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision. The results of our study indicated that thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision in two stages of engagement and maturation. The emotional need to be responsive towards peers and students is the main motivation for the acquisition of competency at observation and evaluation phase of engagement. Through the evaluation and observation phase, the supervisors reach cognitive competence, such as research skills. Also, in the maturation phases, they reach meta-competence in research supervision such as problem-solving and resolving dilemmas by reflection in and when exposed to dilemmas. Meanwhile, the effects of supervision climate include shortcomings and role ambiguities which should be taken into account. According to this model, when supervisors are exposed to such problems, they apply multiple strategies, such as self-directed and collaborative learning; and learning by trial and error and from the role models. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. This study indicated that interactive accountability, as the core variable, can be guaranteed in thesis supervisors by making the role clear, creating a supportive context, and improving the academic competencies of staff in an ongoing fashion. Therefore, this can promote constructive expertise in supervisors and foster a deeper understanding of the supervisor’s expertise in thesis supervision.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets produced and analyzed during the present study are not publicly accessible due to participant confidentiality, but are obtainable from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Harwood N, Petrić B. Adaptive master’s dissertation supervision: a longitudinal case study. Teach High Educ. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541881 .

Hal de Kleijn RA, Meijer PC, Brekelmans M, Pilot A. Adaptive research supervision: exploring expert thesis supervisors’ practical knowledge. High Educ Res Dev. 2015;34(1):117–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(2):135–50.

Light, G, Cox R, Calkins S. Learning and teaching in higher education: the reflective professional. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman; 2009.

Youseffi A, Bazrafkan L, Yamani N. A qualitative inquiry into the challenges and complexities of research supervision: viewpoints of postgraduate students and faculty members. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2015;3(3):91.

Google Scholar  

Lee AM. Developing effective supervisors: concepts of research supervision. South Afr J High Educ. 2007;21(4):680–93.

Hall-Ellis SD, Grealy DS. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition: a career development framework for succession planning and management in academic libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2013;74(6):587–603.

Wisker G. The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.

Vereijken MW, van der Rijst RM, van Driel JH, Dekker FW. Novice supervisors’ practices and dilemmatic space in supervision of student research projects. Teach High Educ. 2018;23(4):522–42.

Haghdoost AA, Ghazi M, Rafiee Z, Afshari M. The trend of governmental support from post-graduated Iranian students in medical fields to study abroad. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(Suppl 1):141–6.

Malekzadeh R, Mokri A, & , Azarmina P. Medical science and research in Iran. Arch Iran Med (2001)4(1):27–39.

Samari A, Sorkhabi E, Omran S, Geraeenejed. Research and identify the factors contributing to the process of “academic development”. Iran Univ Stud Educ Plann. 2014;2(4):67–100.

Malekafzali H, Majdzadeh S, Fotouhi A, Tavakoli S. Applied research methodology in medical sciences. Tehran: Tehran University of Medical Sciences; 2004.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication; 2012.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 1998.

Jeon Y-H. The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18(3):249–56.

Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd edition. Routledge: Taylor and Francis group; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dilley P. Interviews and the philosophy of qualitative research. J High Educ. 2004;75(1):127–32.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 2008.

Cho JY, Lee E-H. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. Qual Rep. 2014;19(32):1–20.

Gioia DACK, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods. 2013;16(1):15–31.

Skeith L, Ridinger H, Srinivasan S, Givi B, Youssef N, Harris I. Exploring the thesis experience of master of health professions education graduates: a qualitative study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:113.

Yeatman A. Making supervision relationships accountable: graduate student logs. Aust Univ Rev. 1995;38(2):9–11.

Saaban A, Abu B, Jiar YK. Students and supervisors’ roles and responsibilities in doctoral research supervision. Adv Sci Lett. 2018;24(1):66–8.

Carter S, Laurs D, Chant L, Wolfgramm-Foliaki E. Indigenous knowledges and supervision: changing the lens. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2018;55(3):384–93.

Boston P. The three faces of supervision: Individual learning, group learning, and supervisor accountability. In C. Burck and G. Daniel (2010) (Eds.) Mirrors and Reflections Processes of Systemic Supervision. Routledge, Taylor, and Francis; 2010:27–48.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Manathunga C. The development of research supervision: “turning the light on a private space”. Int J Acad Dev. 2005;10(1):17–30.

Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J Manag. 2012;38(1):9–44.

Bandura A. On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. J Manag. 2015;41(4):1025–44.

Britzman DP. Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. -State University of New York Press; 2003.

Patel M, Reed D, Smith C, Arora V. Role-modeling cost-conscious care—a national evaluation of perceptions of faculty at teaching hospitals in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(9):1294–8.

Howard M, Steensma HK, Lyles M, Dhanaraj C. Learning to collaborate through collaboration: how allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms. Strateg Manag J. 2015:n/a.

Steinert Y. Faculty development: core concepts and principles. Steinert Y, editor. Faculty development in the health professions. Innovation and change in professional education. 11: Springer Netherlands; 2014. 3–25.

Al-Naggar R, et al. Doctorate international students’ satisfaction and stress on academic supervision in a Malaysian University: a qualitative approach. Educ Res. 2012;3(3):264–9.

Gillet N, Gagné M, Sauvagère S, Fouquereau E. The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2012;22(4):450–60.

Harden RM. AMEE guide no. 14: outcome-based education: part 1-an introduction to outcome-based education. Med Teach. 1999;21(1):7–14.

Bazrafkan L, Shokrpour N, Yousefi A, Yamani N. Management of stress and anxiety among phd students during thesis writing: a qualitative study. Health Care Manag. 2016;35(3):231–40.

Ghadirian L, Sayarifard A, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F, Yunesian M. Challenges for better thesis supervision. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:32.

Vehviläinen S, Löfström E. ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Stud High Educ. 2016;41(3):508–24.

Grossman ES. ‘My supervisor is so busy...’ informal spaces for postgraduate learning in the health sciences. South Afr J High Educ. 2016;30(2):94–109.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to thank all research participants of Medical Sciences Universities (faculty, student, and managers) who contributed to the study. The authors would also like to thank the Education Development Center of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for cooperation in this study and special thanks to Professor Shokrpoour for her editing.

The present article was extracted from the thesis written by Leila Bazrafkan. The design and implementation of the project was financially supported by Esfahan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 92–6746).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Leila Bazrafkan & Mitra Amini

Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Alireza Yousefy & Nikoo Yamani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LB developed the study design, conducted the interviews and analysis, ensured trustworthiness, and drafted the manuscript. AY, as the supervisor participated in the study design, supervised the codes and data analysis process, and revised the manuscripts. NY as research advisor participated in the study and provided guidance during the study and MA revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

LB is an assistant professor of medical education in Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

AY is Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan

MA is Professor of Medical Education in the Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

NY Associate Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikoo Yamani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were justified about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

Consent for publication

Participants gave printed informed consent for the use of passages for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bazrafkan, L., Yousefy, A., Amini, M. et al. The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ 19 , 320 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2019

Accepted : 29 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Medical sciences faculty
• Grounded theory
• Thesis supervision

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Coming soon
• Recent changes
• Academic regulations
• Programme and module design and approval
• Assessment, awards and degree classification
• Personal tutoring, student support and development
• Concerns, complaints and appeals
• Registration and attendance
• Research degree policies and guidance
• Progression
• Supervision
• Research programme regulations
• Regulations for programmes which are not currently running
• Student engagement and representation
• Studies away from the University
• Professional Work Based Learning
• Contingency classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional regulations: Covid-19

Responsibilities of the supervisor

This page contains detailed information about the role and responsibilities of a postgraduate supervisor, including research planning and thesis requirements. Its content is relevant to staff and students across all of the UK, China and Malaysia campuses.

Search the manual

Note:  In addition to the responsibilities detailed in this section, Postgraduate Student Advisors should also see the additional Covid-19 related responsibilities for Heads of Schools, PGR Directors and Supervisors for 2020-21. For more information, please consult the following:

Responsibilities of the Head of School, Supervisor and Director of PGR Programme - Additional guidance for the 2020-21 academic year in response to Covid-19

Supervisors will provide guidance and assistance to PGRs so that they may carry out their research and present their results to the best advantage.

Every supervisor and every PGR will be provided with guidance on their respective roles and responsibilities.

2. Role of the supervisor

The general role of supervisors is to guide and assist PGRs until submission of their thesis and any subsequent period of corrections, until such a point that examiners have reached a final decision on the award of the degree. The roles of supervisor and examiner are quite distinct, and it is not one of the roles of the supervisor to assess the thesis.

The specific roles of supervisors may differ depending on the academic discipline, Departmental practice and whether the member of staff is acting as lead, second, assistant, temporary or permanent supervisor. The lead supervisor (or delegate) will also consider requests for annual leave in line with School/Departmental policy.

3. Role of the assistant supervisor

Many postdoctoral research staff, level 4 Research Officers and research technicians make valuable contributions towards the supervision of the University’s PGRs.

The formal appointment of such staff as assistant supervisors as part of a supervisory team is intended to recognise and acknowledge this contribution and to identify the roles and responsibilities of assistant supervisors in order that this is clear to the candidate and all members of the supervisory team. 

Assistant supervisors are responsible for: 

• providing regular support and advice to PGRs. This may include guidance on welfare matters and health and safety.
• providing guidance on how to use equipment or specific research techniques and methods.
• helping PGRs to resolve difficulties they encounter and/or direct them to others who can assist.
• providing PGRs with informal feedback on their written work and/or presentations.
• where applicable, contributing to the reporting of progress of PGRs, noting that the level of involvement with this will be agreed, in advance, with the lead and co-supervisor(s).
• encouraging PGRs to disseminate their research.
• engaging with professional development opportunities to develop their supervisory practice including any mandatory training requirements.
• ensuring they are familiar with policies and processes applicable to research degrees.

4. Continuing professional development

All supervisors must undertake continuing professional development, so that their work as a supervisor is supported.

Supervisors should take the initiative in updating their knowledge and skills by participating in a range of appropriate activities and sharing good practice.

More information on support for research supervisors can be found here:

Researcher Academy

5. Documentation check

Includes:  responsibilities

At the outset the supervisor should check that the candidate has received information sent by the University concerning registration and that they have registered for that session.

Before or at initial registration or, at the latest within 4 weeks of initial registration, supervisors should check that all their PGRs have received copies of essential documentation relevant to their research studies or have been informed about where to locate them on the web. As a minimum, this should include: information about registration and services, the School Handbook, and any relevant safety advice.

For more information about registration, please consult the following:

Student Services - registration

6. Research plan

Includes: assistance; designing a programme of research; for full-time doctoral students

Supervisors will assist their PGRs to plan their research studies, including helping them to define their research topic; to identify schemes and specific tasks; to identify the relevant research literature, databases and other relevant sources, and to be aware of the standards in the discipline.

The supervisor and candidate should design a programme of research in which (subject to research progress and taking into account special cases) all or much of the thesis will have been written up by the candidate by the end of their period of registered study. The design of the programme of research should not at the outset plan to include any period of thesis pending that the candidate is entitled to. 

For full-time doctoral candidates on a 3 year programme, it is expected that the completion of the entire doctoral examination process is completed within 4 years. The PGR may need to register for some taught modules or attend research training courses. The supervisor will advise them how to do this.

7. Advising on regulations

Includes: understanding and knowledge; responsibilities

Supervisors should have a reasonable knowledge and understanding of the University's regulations governing research study and the University, Faculty and Departmental procedures governing research study and supervision.

They are required to advise their PGRs on these regulations and procedures or, if they feel a question is outside their knowledge, to direct their PGR to other sources such as Student Services (or Central Administration at UNM and the Graduate School at UNNC).

Supervisors also have a responsibility to ensure that other members of the supervisory team are kept informed of the candidate’s progress, and any issues which may be having an impact on their programme.

8. Advising on services and facilities

Includes: responsibilities; review of PGR needs

Supervisors should have a reasonable knowledge of and be able to advise their PGRs on the availability of the University's academic services and facilities (for example library and computing facilities) and how to make use of them.

The supervisors in conjunction with the PGR should keep under review the facilities which are required in order to carry out the research and make these needs known to the Head of School.

9. Minimum number of supervisions

Includes: responsibility to provide appropriate and regular supervision; requirements for part-time PGRs

Supervisors are responsible for providing appropriate and regular supervision for their PGRs until submission of their thesis and any subsequent period of corrections, until such a point that examiners have reached a final decision on the award of the degree. They are also responsible for being accessible at mutually convenient times to listen and offer advice.

Students and supervisors are jointly responsible for arranging the supervision meetings.

Supervisors must provide their part-time candidates with a minimum of 6 recorded supervisions a year and their full-time candidates with a minimum of 12 recorded supervisions a year. 

These supervisory meetings must be at least monthly for full time candidates and two-monthly for part time candidates. This is based on calendar months. Note, it is expected that in many cases the actual number of meetings between supervisors and candidates may exceed these minima. 

If it is not possible for a meeting to take place as scheduled, the meeting should be re-arranged for the next available opportunity.   

If no meetings are possible in any given month (or two months for part time students), the supervisor is responsible to ensure that the reason for the missed meeting is recorded appropriately. These reports should be regularly monitored by the School. University staff will review the missed meeting reports on a case by case basis, particularly for PGRs are at risk of breaching visa and immigration requirements, to see if any additional support is required. These requirements may also be modified under the rules for supervising students working off-site. 

For students who are missing meetings, or who are not meeting the meeting minima requirements, the regulations governing attendance and engagement should be reviewed:

10. Format for supervisions

Includes: definition; purpose

A 'supervision meeting' is considered to be a any simultaneous contact between the supervisor(s) and PGR candidate for an academic purpose. It is important that at the supervision meetings the PGR’s progress to date and/or the future direction of their research or thesis writing is discussed. It is also necessary that these discussions must be summarised in writing so that they are available if required, for example for audit purposes, or to aid student wellbeing or support. These written reports must meet the minimum number requirements as detailed earlier. 

There is no specified format for these meetings.  For example, a daily chat at the lab bench and/or a pre-scheduled sit down meeting would meet these criteria, as long as a monthly report with a progress overview is still submitted. Group meetings of PGRs and/or seminars would be acceptable as long as the PGR’s progress to date and/or the future direction of their research or thesis writing is discussed.   

A supervision meeting should typically take place as a face-to-face meeting, but can also include meetings conducted online, such as on Microsoft Teams. The exception to this is where the PGR is in the UK on a student visa, unless the student has been given formal permission to study at a different location, supervision meetings must be face-to-face and on campus.

11. Supervision record

Includes:  reporting needs; annual review of PGRs

In order that proper audit of supervision provision can be carried out, so that supervisors may undertake continuous monitoring of their PGR’s progress, and records of this progress monitoring are available for formal Progression Review, supervisors are required to ensure the maintenance of a supervision record of at least the minimum number and frequency of supervision meetings a year (see Section 9 above).   

Supervisors should advise their PGRs on the procedures for monitoring their progress which are described in the section of this Quality Manual entitled Progression Review of research students.

These include:

(i)  Supervision Records - attendance at supervision sessions and completion of supervision records;

(ii)  Progression Review - formal review of progress towards meeting the required outcomes, and assessment of whether the outcomes will be met in the required time. Completion of the Progression Review forms. 

(iii) MPhil and doctoral registration - procedures for upgrading or downgrading candidates and for confirming MPhil or doctoral registration.

Supervisors may, from time to time, be required to provide reports on their PGR’s progress for other purposes and to other agencies, for example, the Research Councils and other sponsors. Such reports should be provided within the required deadline to ensure, in particular, that the continuation of candidate’s funding by outside agencies is not compromised.

For more information about the Progression Review of research students, please consult the following:

Progression Review of research students

12. Training needs

Includes: discussing personal, academic, and professional skills; PGR training programme; research ethics; Code of research conduct and research ethics 

The supervisor should discuss with the PGR what personal, academic, and professional skills training they require in order to complete their research degree and to provide a skills base for a future career.

The supervisor should agree with the candidate a research training programme which is compatible with the PGR's needs and which is achievable in relation to the research commitments within the limits of their registered period of study, making it clear where attendance at training courses is compulsory or voluntary. This programme should be reviewed each year.

The supervisors should take reasonable steps to ensure that the PGR’s training needs are met. Normally such training will be delivered within the University and the supervisor should, therefore, be aware of any research training offered through the Researcher Academy, the Doctoral Training Centre/Programme, the Faculty and the School.  

The supervisor should also ensure that the PGR receives adequate training in research ethics and is given assistance in applying for ethical approval if appropriate.

For more information, please consult the following:

Code of research conduct and research ethics

Includes:  correct procedures; seeking advice

14. Meetings, conferences and publication

The supervisor(s) should encourage and facilitate the PGR to engage with relevant academics who will support their doctoral research and future career development.

This could be through encouraging attendance at seminars, meetings and conferences; introducing them to relevant individuals and professional networks; and encouraging them to publish the results of their research. 

Where appropriate supervisors should also support the PGRs to participate in public and policy engagement activities or undertake placements and internships that will enable them to develop their broader research experiences.

15. Written work

16. supervision during thesis pending period.

Includes: minimum number of meetings; the role of proofreaders

During the thesis pending period and any period of corrections or thesis re-submission, supervisors and PGRs should continue to meet regularly (as described above).

Supervisors will also read and comment on one draft of the candidate’s thesis prior to each submission (as appropriate) when submitted within the required timeframes for feedback to be given.

The Role of Proofreaders

A proofreader may only ensure that the meaning of the author is not misrepresented due to the quality and standard of the English used. This can include correcting spelling and basic grammar errors.

Inaccuracies in academic content should not be corrected nor should the structure of the piece of work be changed; doing so may result in a charge of plagiarism. 

17. Thesis presentation

Supervisors should advise candidate’s on the timing, construction and form of presentation of their thesis and should check that they receive a copy of the University's guidance on presenting a thesis, from Student Services or Central Administration at UNM or Graduate School at UNNC.

18. Examination of thesis

19. submission of data, additional information.

Includes:  PGR supervision record; Research supervisor resources

Research supervisor resources

Students studying in outside organisations

UNUK students   

Student services, unnc students .

UNM students 

Staff       , related content.

Portland Building, University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Legal information

• Terms and conditions
• Posting rules
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Charity gateway
• Cookie policy

Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs .

Browser does not support script.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What is the role of a thesis supervisor at the MSc level

I am a first year masters student just entering the first phase of my thesis research. I am the first student that my supervisor will be taking on so it is quite a new experience for both of us. Given the context of the relationship, I am curious to what extent a thesis supervisor ought to play in the development of the student and in contrast what are some tangible things I could be doing to contribute to this relationship as well to aid in my own development? My objective is to not have my hand held (too much) because I really want to strive for research autonomy eventually and produce quality research. I am however worried that maybe i'll spend too much time on learning something relevant, but not as crucial, to the research and not fully recognize that

• research-process

A huge role . Masters is a time to contribute to an established research project while putting in your own experiences to a certain degree. Usually it is not the Master's students job to come up with a project, understand its research utility/significance etc. Rather, that project usually exists already and the supervisor asks the student to move it forward, perhaps even support a PhD student in their work.

In this sense, your supervisor should be working closely with you, at least at the beginning, to make sure you understand what needs to be done and how to contribute. This isn't to say that you're doing exactly what the supervisor says. Rather, it is understood that a masters student lacks the depth and breadth of understanding of the field required to make a truly impactful, original contribution (usually! Some are exceptional. Point is that this isn't the expectation).

By the end of the project you will be the expert in your own contribution. Your supervisor will guide your thesis and make sure that things like the claims and background section are adequate and truthful.

You should use your masters studies to explore the field and gain some of the breadth/depth required to understand if it's really the field you'd want to pursue if you were to do PhD. If that is your goal, you should also use it as an experience to learn the basics of what research is and is not, what a contribution is and is not, and how the life cycle of a research project evolves. If that is not your goal, then you should also focus on gaining skills and knowledge that you feel will help you in your future career. Your supervisor's job is to ensure that you are given the freedom to explore these things within the context of the overall project.

If, for example, you want to learn about linguistics but you are working on a project in international development, that is probably not a good use of you or your supervisor's time unless you can link it somehow. On the other hand, if you're working on such a project and you decide to study some of the history of the country your project is based in, then that is probably a good use of your time, provided you don't lose track of your main project. Your supervisor, with regular check-ins, can help you to better understand if you are on the right path with side interests and will also help to steer you back toward your project if you are going too far off track.

• Thank you, I found this particularly useful. From my understanding, I know that some departments at the MSc level operate in 2 ways: (1) They have the project for you and (2) you make it all up. My department is in the (1) category, but unfortunately my supervisor has been gone since I have begun research, hence why I am trying to tease out what might be some rather basic questions. So thank you. –  GrayLiterature Commented May 22, 2019 at 16:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged research-process thesis masters ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• What is this device in my ceiling making out of battery chirps?
• Wasserstein distance and put function
• set face for text in izones
• Why is there an "unnamed volcano" in Syria?
• Whats the safest way to store a password in database?
• How do I backup only changed files on an external hard drive?
• Bash script that takes multiple path arguments and checks if files can be successfully created there
• Is it fine to call a 26 year old character a young adult?
• Word for a collection of awards, such as an Olympic athlete’s earned medals
• How can coordinates be meaningless in General Relativity?
• Which English version of Psalm 121:2-3 expresses the Psalmist's intent best?
• Explain how π – 1 + 50 + ⅔ × 1000 is PLONK
• Are there physical cases where we deliberately randomise the events?
• Compactly supported wave packet in Schrödinger's evolution
• Are old games from 2023 considered in new fide rating calculations?
• Soldering RG179 coaxial cable directly to PCB
• Should you refactor when there are no tests?
• Why does my shifter say the wrong gear?
• Word to describe telling yourself that you are not, and will never be, good enough
• How do #1 and #2 work in a function defined by 2 variables?
• Why are orthonitrate ions not found in nature?
• Can Ontario municipal zoning by-laws prohibit site-built tiny homes?
• How to prevent my frozen dessert from going solid?
• Extension of Sobolev function defined on unit cube

This website uses cookies to ensure you get a better experience. Allow Cookies

Search La Trobe

Your supervisor's responsibilities

Your supervisors are responsible for academic support throughout your candidature to enable you to achieve a high standard of research. Supervisors are either academic staff or people considered to have achieved distinction in a field of research.

You will also have a Principal supervisor and a Co-supervisor, and may have associate or external supervisors who have the same responsibility as other supervisors.

• Your supervisor will discuss the nature of your research, your choice of topic, your research program and its Milestones, and the availability of library resources in your field.
• You will need to maintain close and regular contact with your supervisor.
• Your supervisor will help you to access the resources you need for your research , and assist you with information about University requirements and procedures.
• Your supervisor will ask you for written work (and other work as appropriate for your research), often on a pre-arranged and agreed schedule.
• Your supervisor will provide you with feedback and will help you to develop solutions to problems as you identify them.
• You and your supervisor will discuss reports for your Research Progress Panel and your supervisor will provide feedback as part of your RPP meetings.
• Your supervisor will give you feedback on the content and drafts of your thesis and, at the time of submission, certify that your thesis is worthy of examination.
• Your supervisor may also provide career advice and other assistance as appropriate.

For more information, read the Supervision of Research Students Procedure [PDF 49.1KB] .

Sign up for seminars on working with your supervisor

• Research, Partnerships and Innovation
• Postgraduate Research Hub
• Supervision: The Code of Practice

Responsibilities of the supervisor

An outline of supervisors' responsibilities towards PGR students and the wider University.

• At the outset of the research, the supervisor should explore in detail the student's academic background to identify any areas in which further training (including English language training) is required. In particular, the supervisor should advise the student in the choice of subject-specific knowledge and skills training required. 
• The supervisor will give guidance on the nature of the research and the standard expected; the selection of a research programme and the topic to be covered; the planning and timing of the successive stages of the research programme; literature and sources; research methods and instrumental techniques; attendance at appropriate courses; data management, avoidance of unfair means and respect for copyright.
• The supervisor should ensure that they have a thorough understanding of the DDP and its benefits, to ensure students make the most appropriate choice of modules and other training and development opportunities.
• The supervisor should ensure that the student has a clear understanding in general terms of the main aspects of graduate research: the concept of originality; the different kinds of research; the form and structure of the thesis (including the appropriate forms of referencing); the necessary standards to be achieved; the importance of planning and time management; the procedures for monitoring and reporting progress.
• The supervisor should ensure that the student is aware of the University's Good Research and Innovation Practices (GRIP) Policy. In addition, the supervisor should ensure that the student has a clear understanding in general terms of good academic practice and, where relevant, ethics approval and research governance. 
• The supervisor should work with the student to establish an effective supervisory relationship, thereby supporting the student. This should include an agreement on the frequency of progress meetings and the arrangements for keeping records.
• The supervisor should set a target date for Confirmation Review and and regular progress milestones at induction, to ensure that all parties acknowledge the length of time available for each stage of the project.

Supervision

• The supervisor should ensure that the research project can be completed fully, including preparation and submission of the thesis, within the student's tuition fee-paying period, and should advise the student accordingly.
• The supervisor must ensure that a clear agreement is made with the student on the frequency and nature of the supervisory contact required at any particular stage of the project. Supervisory sessions should be uninterrupted as far as possible by telephone calls, visitors and other departmental/school business. The frequency of such sessions should be every four weeks as a minimum (pro-rata for part-time); the frequency may depend on the nature of the research (e.g. whether laboratory work is involved) and the specific research project. The length of sessions will also vary, from student to student, across time and between disciplines.
• The supervisor should comply with the attendance and engagement monitoring requirements of the department/school/University and raise any attendance or engagement concerns at an early stage.
• Written records of formal supervisory meetings should be made and retained by both the student and supervisor for at least the duration of the student's registration. 
• Both the supervisor and student should keep any relevant or significant correspondence, including emails, which relate to the student's degree.  This is especially important for students who are studying via the Remote Location programme or who are spending a significant amount of time off-campus.
• The student and supervisor must have an agreed procedure for dealing with urgent problems (e.g. by telephone, e-mail and/or the arrangement of additional meetings at short notice).
• The supervisor should, in discussion with the student, establish and maintain a satisfactory timetable for the research, including the necessary completion dates for each stage, so that the thesis may be submitted on time. This planning should take into account the requirements of the relevant funding body in relation to submission.
• The supervisor should read promptly all the written work submitted in accordance with the agreed timetable and provide constructive and timely feedback.  The supervisor should advise the student of any obstacles to providing timely feedback, e.g. planned periods of time away from the University, particularly when the student is approaching submission.
• The supervisor should arrange, as appropriate, for the student to present work to staff or graduate seminars and should take an active part in introducing the student to meetings of learned societies and to other researchers in the field. The supervisor should provide advice, where appropriate, on publication of any of the research.
• The supervisor should advise the student, in advance, of any planned periods of absence from the University. If the period of absence is significant (more than the length of time between supervisory meetings), the supervisor should ensure that appropriate arrangements for alternative supervision are made and that the student is informed of them.
• The supervisor should take note of feedback from the student.
• The supervisor should engage with mandatory Continuing Professional Development appropriate to their level of supervisory experience, in line with University requirements.

Academic progress

• The supervisor should ensure that the student is informed of any inadequacy of standards of work below that generally expected from research students and should suggest remedial action, or training, as appropriate.
• The supervisor should comply with all departmental/school, faculty and/or sponsor requirements concerning the monitoring of progress and submission of progress reports. 

The final stages

• The supervisor should nominate appropriate examiners well in advance of the thesis being submitted, bearing in mind that all nominations require faculty approval before they can be appointed.  Failure to do so will lead to delays in dispatching the student’s thesis and arranging the viva examination.
• The supervisor should read and comment on drafts of the thesis before submission.
• The supervisor should ensure that the student understands the procedures for the submission and examination of the thesis and should assist the student in preparing for the oral examination, including offering a mock viva.
• Should the student be asked to resubmit their thesis, the supervisor will be responsible for continuing to provide support and supervision throughout the resubmission period.
• The supervisor should discuss and agree with the student if there is a need to embargo the thesis and should sign off on the Access to Thesis form which specifies any embargo requirements.

Related information

Contact the Research Degree Support Team

Workshops for Research Supervisors

Responsibilities of the student

Responsibilities of the department

The Role of Supervisor and Student for Completing a Thesis

• December 2017
• Tribhuvan University Journal 31(1-2):223-238
• 31(1-2):223-238

• Tribhuvan University

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Novita Dewi

• Emanuel Sunarto
• Anne Shakka

• Raj Kumar Gurung

• Bal Mukunda Bhandari

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up