Learning Connection
The quality of candidate-supervisor relationships has an important influence on candidates’ satisfaction with their research education. It is important to get the relationship off to a good start and maintain effective relations through the varying stresses and challenges of a research degree. Commencing candidates are sometimes unsure about what is reasonable to expect from their supervisors. An effective working relationship is therefore easier to establish when candidates and their supervisors are clear about the expectations they have of each other and comfortable about re-negotiating expectations during the candidature.
On the whole, candidates want their supervisors to provide expert guidance and direction and supervisors want their candidates to progressively take control of their research and develop an authoritative voice on the topic. When difficulties arise it is often because supervisors and candidates differ in their understanding of how much guidance is acceptable and how much autonomy is reasonable in the different stages of candidature.
This guide provides some ideas and strategies to help both supervisors and candidates negotiate mutually acceptable expectations.
At a workshop held in 2002 at the University of South Australia, candidates identified a range of expectations students had of their supervisors, which are congruent with good practice as it is described in research education literature (Moses, 1985, 1992; Phillips & Pugh, 2000; Parry & Hayden,1994). These sources reveal that research degree candidates expect their supervisors to be:
Supervisors often respond to these expectations by asking how much support and guidance is reasonable. Each individual has different needs and strengths and each supervisory relationship is distinctive. What these expectations mean in practice therefore needs to be discussed within each relationship and re-negotiated regularly over the term of the candidate’s study.
Supervisors also have expectations of candidates. For example, they can reasonably expect students to:
Again, candidates may question some of these expectations. For example, should they have sole responsibility for deciding their topic? Should they act on all the feedback provided by their supervisors or are they expected to decide for themselves what is good advice? Is it reasonable to expect supervisors will always alert them to the relevant policies and guidelines for research in the University?
The University has a Planning and Review 1 process that requires supervisors to meet with candidates at least twice a year to plan and monitor progress. The first stage of this process is at the very beginning of candidature when candidates are asked to sign a Statement of Agreement .2 Candidates are expected to plan and undertake research education support activities that will enhance their development of the Research Degree Graduate Qualities 3 and these activities are documented in the Statement of Agreement and successive reports of progress. Supervisors and candidates are expected to use this first planning meeting to negotiate the activities the candidate will undertake and to discuss their relative expectations concerning their involvement in thesis writing and their agreement on the important matters of plagiarism, Intellectual Property and the authorship of articles for publication. It is expected that both supervisors will be involved in the initial meeting and this is a good time for both supervisors to be explicit about their responsibilities as principal and associate, or co-supervisors.
It is useful to take into account the following principles when negotiating expectations.
Individual personalities and different contexts affect the way supervision occurs in each relationship. As the University’s research student cohort becomes increasingly diverse, the unique nature of each relationship between supervisor and candidate becomes more marked. Factors likely to influence the expectations people have of supervision are the:
While there are certain basic expectations in every supervisory relationship, what is reasonable in each instance will depend on the people involved and the context in which the supervision takes place. Candidates and supervisors need to negotiate and agree on their interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable level of such things as availability to meet, providing feedback on draft writing, or giving advice on the directions of the research and the content of the thesis.
Expectations established at the beginning of the research degree will continue to evolve throughout the course of the candidature. The following factors are likely to influence changes in a candidate-supervisor relationship.
With these principles in mind, the following topics are presented to help supervisors and candidates negotiate their expectations at the beginning of candidature and, as appropriate, to re-negotiate at various stages throughout the candidature. It identifies particular areas where there may be significant differences in expectations.
Expectations regarding access and communication need to be negotiated early in the relationship. The supervisor and candidate should agree on meeting times and such details as their regularity and frequency, as well as how they will be conducted. The role and level of involvement of the associate supervisor needs to be clarified.
Practical details that might be attended to are:
There may be different expectations with regard to the extent and nature of guidance and direction on such matters as:
The degree to which the supervisor is involved in these decisions may vary depending on a range of issues, which include the candidate’s learning background and previous professional or research experience, the supervisor’s knowledge and expertise, and accepted disciplinary practice in particular fields. Frequently, research can take a direction not expected by either the candidate or supervisor and if a supervisor is worried that it no longer relates closely to his or her expertise, this can be a source of tension. Problems can be averted by discussing the implications of such changes and agreeing on a course of action.
Also needing to be negotiated in the initial stages are some ground rules for presenting at conferences and writing publications. It is important for supervisors and candidates to be familiar with the policy governing authorship 4 and the conditions that must be satisfied before a co-author should claim authorship status
Constructive critique of research methods and writing should be regular and ongoing. Candidates have a right to expect feedback that is constructive, specific, and prompt. In return, supervisors can expect drafts to be submitted on time, and can expect candidates to take advice seriously, acting on it with the aim of producing quality writing. It is also useful to set ‘turn around’ times for feedback on writing, so that both parties agree on what is reasonable in terms of the time needed to respond appropriately. It may also be necessary to be clear about the kinds of feedback required, from both the candidate's and supervisor’s perspective. For example, supervisors differ in the amount of editorial or stylistic advice they are willing to provide and candidates will vary in the level of detail they expect in supervisor feedback and the degree of ownership they want to maintain over their writing. In addition, different kinds of feedback will be appropriate at different stages of the writing. Such expectations may need to be specified each time feedback is requested and supervisors can ask students to identify the kinds of feedback they perceive would be most useful in particular circumstances.
Research support and guidance is available from a number of sources and supervisors should not be expected to be the sole source of guidance and support. Candidates should be alerted to the services and resources available from other sources across the University, including the Graduate Studies Office, Learning Connection, the Library, Research Services and the Students’ Association. A calendar of Research Education Support Activities Program 5 activities for research students is available online and candidates are expected to attend orientation sessions and relevant workshops. Candidates also need to be directed to the activities and support that may be available from professional bodies and associations. In turn, supervisors can reasonably expect that, having been informed of these services, their candidates will make optimum use of them.
Candidates expect varying degrees of professional guidance and mentoring from their supervisors. Generally the expectation is that supervisors will use their academic and professional experience to suggest opportunities for them to:
Supervisors could also be reasonably expected to:
Allowing for the demands of the research program, and therefore in consultation with their supervisors, candidates need to be alert and active in
Numerous policies, regulations and procedures govern higher degrees and research in the University. Those with particular relevance for research relate to intellectual property, ethics and safety and authorship (see above). Those with relevance for research supervision are the Codes of Good Practice: Supervising Research Candidates 6 and Key Responsibilities in Research Degree Management 7. Candidates, as well as Supervisors and Research Degree Coordinators, are advised to remain informed of these policies, codes and guidelines because they outline what the University expects will happen in ethical research and effective supervisory relationships. Other information becomes relevant at various stages of the student’s candidature, such as information about the conditions relating to scholarships, extension and deferment, information about grants and funding opportunities and procedures for submitting a research proposal and a thesis for examination . Supervisors and candidates should remain alert to changes in regulations and policies but it is reasonable for candidates to expect that supervisors will at least inform them of how they can access such information. Supervisors can access all research policies and guidelines 8 online.
