Seventh Thing: Supervisor Relationships

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… 

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities 

Charles Dickens may have been describing a period of great upheaval and change in European history, but the quote could equally be applied to Graduate Research (GR) candidature. For both supervisor and graduate researcher, the journey through candidature is a serious undertaking, where both embark on a path of research which ultimately leads to a submitted thesis. The path of candidature is filled with trials and tribulations and undoubtedly changes both supervisor and GR in different ways as the research emerges. 

This ‘research thing,’ authored by Kate Howell, celebrates the research journey of supervisor and GR and gives advice on how to set up for and conduct a functional supervisory relationship. This advice is for both GRs and their supervisors and is taken from the literature and our understandings of best practice drawn from national and international universities. 

Starting on the same page 

There is strong sense of excitement and possibility in the air; finally the project is starting! Yet, the first weeks and months of GR candidature can be bewildering. For many, adjusting to a new university, city, country, and mode of study is profound and it requires time to find your place. The supervisor is equally feeling their way; very keen to get started but mindful of the immediate pressures of settling in. Some things to do here are to set up the nuts and bolts of the supervisory relationship; when and how to meet, office hours, laboratory inductions, and planning, planning, planning. Beyond the functional requirements of induction are the foundations of a strong working relationship. What are the expectations of each other in these early phases? Cardilini, Risely, and Richardson (2021) have looked at supervisors and GRs in Australia and found that there were indeed mismatched expectations at the beginning of candidature. Both supervisors and GRs agreed that motivation and independence were important, but supervisors ranked good written communication and critical thinking skills above GRs, while GRs considered enthusiasm and academic history as important. It is worthwhile keeping these factors in mind when setting the basis of a new relationship, and prioritising clear and honest communication. At the beginning, work to understand each other’s expectations. 

Balance the critical path with caring 

As candidature progresses, there is a shift in the relationship between supervisor and GR. The GR is becoming more independent, with a burgeoning understanding of the discipline and methodology. The supervisory relationship set in the early days might not be as relevant now; is it time to reset? A study on supervisory styles by GRs in an Australian university show that caring/supportive relationships were preferred over those who focused more strictly on the functions of supervision (Roach, Christensen, and Rieger 2019). How might a supervisor set up a connected relationship that is caring, understanding, and affirming? Consider drawing the GR into the discipline that you work in, enthusing and inspiring the candidate by involvement in co-authored papers, conferences and the like. GRs report being cared for as highly prized, especially when difficulties arise. The timespan of candidature means that major life events will often occur, including births, deaths, weddings, and funerals. A caring supervisor provides important professional support during these times and helps the GR to keep progress and milestones on track. During the project, prioritise balancing accountability to the project with care for the humans involved.  

It was an age of wisdom… 

To borrow from Charles Dickens again, the completion of candidature and submission of the thesis is a time of stress, celebration, and reflection. The knowledge gained, the outputs celebrated, and the strong feeling of accomplishment will be top of mind for the GR. What of the supervisor? Also, a strong feeling of accomplishment and the pleasure of knowing that the journey has been successful and perhaps wistfulness of a GR leaving the university for a bright new career. The foundations of the relationship now yield further fruit; will the relationship continue as colleagues, mentors, or as critical friends? The former GR might play a role in mentoring new GRs in the same research area, or perhaps move into an applied role which applies aspects of the thesis. The evolution of the supervisory relationship can continue and take on new aspects outside of the thesis. 

It is hard to imagine the end of candidature while you are at the beginning, but both supervisors and GRs can imagine a future of being collaborators and disciplinary colleagues. The trick is keeping that end point in mind in the early stages of the relationship and nurturing the professional relationship. Valuing clear communication, collaboration and kindness for the relationship will yield fruit now and into the future. The GR journey can be a time of great upheaval and change, so putting in place a solid and thoughtful supervisory relationship will allow research to thrive. 

About the author

Kate Howell is a microbiologist and biochemist. Her key interest is how microbial interactions and ecology in agricultural and food systems can impact the flavour, aroma, function and health propoerties of food. Concurrently with her academic role, Kate is working in Chancellery as a member of the Researcher Development Unit (RDU). Her role in the RDU is to provide academic oversight and delivery of key schemes at the University, including graduate research supervisor development and a focus on GR development.

References

Cardilini, Adam P. A., Alice Risely, and Mark F. Richardson. 2021. “Supervising the PhD: Identifying Common Mismatches in Expectations between Candidate and Supervisor to Improve Research Training Outcomes.” Higher Education Research & Development 0 (0): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1874887. 

Roach, Alex, Bruce K. Christensen, and Elizabeth Rieger. 2019. “The Essential Ingredients of Research Supervision: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.” Journal of Educational Psychology 111 (7): 1243–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000322

Interview with Danny Butt

1. What is your role?

I’m the Graduate Research Convenor for Design and Production at Victorian College of the Arts in the Faculty of Fine Arts and Music, where I broadly support graduate research projects in the discipline. From 2018-2021 I was Associate Director (Research) for the VCA, chairing 50+ PhD Advisory Committees and as many examinations, mostly in submissions incorporating creative works across the disciplines.

The main thread of my own research is on the topic of artistic research, and the history of the integration of art schools into the University sector and its impact on the development of “practice research”.

2. How have you used supervisor relationships in your role? How has it helped you better manage your work?

Supervisor relationships are some of the most important parts of academic life, but have often been considered a private matter, leading to a wide diversity of practices and a lot of anxiety on the part of graduate researchers and first-time supervisors. It has also allowed cultures of harassment and bullying to persist in some areas – as many as 10% of graduate researchers in a recent survey reported bullying from supervisors. The University has developed policies and tools, such as the Supervisory Agreement, to help clarify shared expectations between supervisors and graduate researchers.

While these tools offer some supports to supervisory relationships, protocols of supervision are highly discipline-specific. In many STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) disciplines, the mode of supervisions is more like an apprenticeship – the tasks set by supervisors are very specific and often related to the supervisor’s own research. In humanities disciplines, researchers are expected to be far more independent, operating on the same level as their supervisor and the relationship is closer to mentoring.

I encourage supervisors to consider their own style and its relationship to the professional norms in their field, and to critically reflect on how the way supervision takes place can help familiarise graduate researchers with those norms to build their effective autonomy from the supervisor. This is not to encourage neglect, but to recognise that in a relatively short period of time the graduate researcher will have to navigate academic life with their own support infrastructure.

3. How has this topic helped you work smarter, not harder when managing your work?

Being associated with so many different graduate research advisory committees has been helpful to me as it’s opened my eyes to the diversity of styles in supervisors and candidates, even in the same discipline. Even though I wrote a chapter on doctoral supervision for my own PhD, in the early days of supervising I think my own style was influenced by my supervisors, both in terms of how I wanted to work and what experiences I wanted to avoid repeating. It is a bit like parenting perhaps in that respect I’ve become more understanding of the many different pathways supervision can take, and it is an art as much as a science. Different kinds of support are needed at different parts of the process: a lot of structure early on might have the candidate and supervisor feeling like things are on track and reduce anxiety, but it can be counterproductive if it locks the project into a particular framework before the candidate has settled their interrogation of their relationship to methodology. Similarly, highly interdisciplinary and unconventional projects still need a clear pathway to completion at the end with difficult conversations about limiting the scope and potentially leaving large parts of the work undertaken in the PhD out of the final thesis to take shape in another project.

4. What is your number one tip for supervisor relationships?

I always remind GRs that their advisory committee chair’s role is to address anything that they don’t feel comfortable to discuss with their supervisors. But challenging relationships between supervisors are also not rare, and the chair’s role is an important release valve when there are conflicting expectations. Many GRs are stressed by conflicting advice from supervisors, but conflicting expectations is part of the academic experience that is navigated both in examination reports and in peer review for publications. The important thing the committee can do is stage different perspectives in a way that is empowering for the candidate’s development.

About the interviewee

Dr Danny Butt is Senior Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Practice and Graduate Research Convenor for Design and Production at Victorian College of the Arts in the Faculty of Fine Arts and Music. He is also Chair of the LNR1A Human Ethics Committee and a Research Integrity Advisor. His book Artistic Research in the Future Academy was published by Intellect/University of Chicago Press in 2017; he is on the Editorial Board of the Journal for Artistic Research; and is co-convenor of the Asia Pacific Artistic Research Network.

Cite this Thing

You are free to use and reuse the content on this post with attribution to the author. The citation for this Thing is:

HOWELL, KATE; BUTT, DANNY (2024). Seventh Thing: Supervisor Relationships. The University of Melbourne. Online resource. https://doi.org/10.26188/25287487

Featured image credit: Photo by Amy Hirschi on Unsplash.