thesis director meaning

The Thesis Process

The thesis is an opportunity to work independently on a research project of your own design and contribute to the scholarly literature in your field. You emerge from the thesis process with a solid understanding of how original research is executed and how to best communicate research results. Many students have gone on to publish their research in academic or professional journals.

To ensure affordability, the per-credit tuition rate for the 8-credit thesis is the same as our regular course tuition. There are no additional fees (regular per-credit graduate tuition x 8 credits).

Below are the steps that you need to follow to fulfill the thesis requirement. Please know that through each step, you will receive guidance and mentorship.

1. Meet with Your Research Advisor

Upon admission to the program, set up an introductory meeting with your Research Advisor to discuss potential thesis topics as well as course selections that can support your thesis path. 

When you have completed between 24 and 32 credits, you work more intensively with your assigned Research Advisor to determine a specific thesis topic.

Log in to MyDCE , then ALB/ALM Community to schedule an appointment with your assigned Research Advisor via the Degree Candidate Portal.

Failure to work with your Research Advisor initially and then more intensively may result in your Crafting the Thesis Proposal (CTP) Application not being approved (see below) and/or the selection of a different thesis topic.  

Thesis Topic Selection Guidelines

Every effort is made to support research interests that are grounded in your ALM course work, but faculty guidance is not available for all possible projects. Therefore, revision or a change of thesis topic may be necessary.

• The above point about topic selection is particularly pertinent to scientific research (e.g., biology) that is dependent upon laboratory space, project funding, and access to private databases.
• This point is also critical for our candidates in ALM, liberal arts fields (i.e., anthropology, English, government, history, international relations, psychology, and religion) who are required to have Harvard faculty direct their thesis projects. Review Harvard’s course catalog online ( My.Harvard.edu ) to be sure that there are faculty teaching courses related to your thesis topic. If faculty are not available, you will need to choose an alternative topic.
• Your topic choice must be a new area of research for you. You cannot re-purpose prior research. If you want to draw or expand upon your own previously written scholarship for a small portion of your thesis, you need to obtain the explicit permission of your research advisor and cite the work in both the proposal and thesis. Violations of this policy will be referred to the Administrative Board.

We’ve put together this guide  to help frame your thinking about thesis topic selection.

While it is natural to follow your interests in selecting a thesis topic, it is important to avoid choosing a topic where your own passions might produce insurmountable biases and assumptions. A thesis is not a piece of advocacy work where you are out to prove something that you already believe. Thesis projects must take a fair and balanced stance by bringing in differing points of view from respected scholars in the field. 

2. Prepare Your Crafting the Thesis Proposal Application

Once you and your Research Advisor have confirmed your thesis topic, the next step in the process is to prepare and submit the CTP Application in order to gain registration approval for the Crafting the Thesis Proposal (CTP) tutorial or course.

The CTP Application process confirms that you have done enough prior reading and thinking about your thesis topic to generate a pertinent and answerable research question. Pre-CTP preparation is critical as it helps to ensure that you will benefit from and succeed in the CTP.

Application Approvals and Denials. Your Research Advisor will provide feedback on your CTP Application.  If your application is not approved after 3 submissions, your Research Advisor cannot approve your CTP registration. 

If not approved, you’ll need to take additional time for further revisions and submit a new CTP Application during the next CTP submission cycle (if your five-year degree completion date allows).

Application Eligibility Requirements. To be eligible to submit a CTP Application, you need to (1) be in good standing and (2) have completed a minimum of 32 degree-applicable credits, including the research methods/statistics and Engaging in Scholarly Conversation requirement, if required for your field.

Advising Note for Psychology Candidates View More

Students in psychology sometimes face difficulty securing necessary IRB approvals for certain projects. For this reason, Research Advisors will not approve proposals that raise significant concerns about feasibility. Such concerns include cases where projects would require the researcher to possess a level of expertise or experience exceeding documented capabilities, as well as instances where the researcher is unlikely to be able to obtain appropriate faculty supervision for a proposed topic, question, method, or procedure. You must schedule an appointment with your Research Advisor at least three months in advance of the CTP Application deadlines to discuss potential research projects to ensure adequate time for assistance in developing a viable project idea.

Advising Note for Biology and former Biotechnology and Bioengineering and Nanotechnology Candidates View More

Thesis projects in these fields are designed to support ongoing scientific research happening in Harvard University, other academic institutions, or life science industry labs and usually these are done under the direction of a principal investigator (PI). Hence, you need to have a thesis director approved by your research advisor  prior  to submitting CTP Application. Your CTP Application is then framed by the lab’s research. Schedule an appointment with your research advisor a few months in advance of the CTP Application deadlines in order to discuss potential research projects and thesis director assignment.

The CTP Application is sent to our central email box:  [email protected] by the following firm deadlines:

• June 1 for fall CTP
• November 1 for spring CTP.  
• September 1 for the three-week January session (ALM sustainability candidates only)
• International sustainability students who need a student visa to attend Harvard Summer School must be officially admitted to the degree program before February 1, must submit the CTP Application on February 1, and must register for the CTP course on March 1 in order to submit timely I-20 paperwork. See international students guidelines for more information.

3. Register and Successfully Complete Crafting the Thesis Proposal

Once your CTP Application is approved, you register for the Crafting the Thesis Proposal (CTP) tutorial or course as you would any other degree requirement.

The goal of the CTP is to produce a complete, well-written draft of a proposal containing all of the sections required by your Research Advisor. Creating an academically strong thesis proposal sets the foundation for a high-quality thesis and helps garner the attention of a well-respected thesis director.

Thesis proposals typically include approximately 15 to 20 pages of text, in addition to any required reference sections, such as bibliographies and glossary/definition of terms.

Tutorial experience. The fall and spring CTP  tutorials are not courses in the traditional sense. Although there will be assignments for you to complete during the CTP, with due dates, and there will be times when you and your classmates meet as a group with your Research Advisor, there won’t be a regularly scheduled class meeting time for the CTP. 

The main work for the CTP will consist of your working independently on your proposal with your Research Advisor by submitting multiple drafts and scheduling individual appointments.

Grading. You need to make self-directed progress on the proposal without special prompting from the research advisor. You receive a final grade of SAT or UNSAT (failing grade).

You are expected to incorporate all of your Research Advisor’s feedback and be fully committed to producing an academically strong proposal leading to a thesis worthy of a Harvard degree. If you are unable to take advice from your Research Advisor, follow directions, or produce an acceptable proposal, you will not pass the CTP.

The CTP for sustainability is a three-week course in the traditional sense and you receive a letter grade, and it must be B- or higher to receive degree credit for the course.

Academic Integrity. Successful CTP completion also includes a check on the proper use of sources according to our academic integrity guidelines. Violations of our academic integrity policy will be referred to the Administrative Board.

Maximum of two attempts . If you don’t pass the CTP, you’ll have — if your five-year, degree-completion date allows — just one more attempt to complete the CTP before being required to withdraw from the program. If you fail the CTP just once and have no more time to complete the degree, your candidacy will automatically expire. Please note that a WD grade counts as an attempt.

If by not passing the CTP you fall into poor academic standing, you will need to take additional degree-applicable courses to return to good standing before enrolling in the CTP for your second and final time, but only if your five-year, degree-completion date allows. If you have no more time on your five-year clock, you will be required to withdraw from the program.

Human Subjects

If your thesis, regardless of field, will involve the use of human subjects (e.g., interviews, surveys, observations), you will need to have your research vetted by the  Committee on the Use of Human Subjects  (CUHS) of Harvard University. Please review the IRB Lifecycle Guide located on the CUHS website. Your research advisor will help you prepare a draft copy of the project protocol form that you will then finalize with your thesis director to send to the CUHS. 

Given the amount of time that can be required for IRB review, drafting of the required CUHS project protocol forms need to be started with your Research Advisor during the CTP tutorial, before a thesis director has been assigned.

4. Post-CTP Proposal Approval, Thesis Director Assignment, and Registration

Successfully completion of the CTP means you have completed a well-written full draft proposal. Ordinarily, this full draft is not a final accepted proposal. Most students reach the final accepted proposal stage by submitting additional changes and edits to their RA post-CTP.

Post-CTP Changes and Edits Deadline. We expect you to work diligently and quickly with your RA post-CTP to move from full draft to final proposal stage. Indeed, you should have an approved final proposal and be registered in the thesis soon after CTP completion, within weeks, but no later than 3 months. You cannot delay. If you take longer than 3 months after the CTP to register for the thesis, you may be required to retake the CTP.

Thesis Director Assignment. Once your RA has determined that your draft has reached the final proposal stage, you move to the thesis director assignment stage. The Research Advisor places you with a thesis director by sending out your final proposal to prospective Thesis Directors.

Do not approach faculty to ask about directing your thesis.  You may suggest names of any potential Thesis Directors to your Research Advisor, but it must be the Research Advisor who makes contact with them. (If they are eligible/available to direct your thesis, after you have an approved thesis proposal.) You are not permitted to approach faculty to ask them about directing your thesis.

Registration. When a Thesis Director has been identified or the thesis proposal has been fully vetted by the preassigned life science Thesis Director, you will receive a letter of authorization from the Assistant Dean of Academic Programs officially approving your thesis work and providing you with instructions on how to register for the eight-credit master’s thesis. The letter will also have a tentative graduation date as well as four mandatory thesis submission dates (see Thesis Timetable below).

When registering for the thesis, you will have two weeks to pay in full.  This is an eight-credit course, so be sure to have the necessary funds available when you register.

You must be good academic standing to register for the thesis. If not, you’ll need to complete additional courses to bring your GPA up to the 3.0 minimum prior to registration.

Thesis Submission Deadlines and Graduation Timetable

The thesis is a 9-to-12-month project that begins after the Crafting the Thesis Proposal (CTP); when your Research Advisor has approved your proposal and identified a Thesis Director.

The date for the appointment of your Thesis Director determines the graduation cycle that will be automatically assigned to you:

As you can see above, you do not submit your thesis all at once at the end, but in four phases: (1) complete draft to TD, (2) final draft to RA for format review and academic integrity check, (3) format approved draft submitted to TD for grading, and (4) upload your 100% complete graded thesis to ETDs.

Due dates for all phases for your assigned graduation cycle cannot be missed.  You must submit materials by the date indicated by 5 PM EST (even if the date falls on a weekend). If you are late, you will not be able to graduate during your assigned cycle.

If you need additional time to complete your thesis, you need to formally request an extension by emailing that petition to:  [email protected] .  Regardless of when you started, the maximum allotted time to complete your thesis, including any granted extensions of time is 12 months.

Advising Tip to Meet Your Five-Year Deadline: The last possible time you can register for the CTP to meet your five-year deadline date is the fall term two years prior or, if a sustainability student, in the January session one year prior. It is not, however, recommended to wait this long. Indeed, it is vigorously discouraged.

For example, if your five-year deadline is May 2026:

• Complete the CTP in fall 2024 (or in January 2025, if a sustainability student)
• Be assigned a Thesis Director (TD) in March/April 2025
• Begin the 9–12-month thesis project with TD
• Submit a complete draft of your thesis to your TD by February 1, 2026
• Follow through with all other submission deadlines (April 1, April 15 and May 1 — see table above)
• Graduate in May 2026

5. Working with Your Thesis Director

You must work diligently and independently, following the advice of your Thesis Director in a consistent, regular manner equivalent to full-time academic work to complete both the research and the writing phases of your thesis by your required timeline.

You are expected to incorporate all of your Thesis Director’s feedback and be fully committed to producing an academically strong thesis worthy of a Harvard degree. If you are unable to take advice from your Thesis Director, follow directions, or produce an acceptable scholarly thesis product, you will not receive a passing grade.

You are required to produce at least 50 pages of text (not including front matter and appendices). Chapter topics (e.g., introduction, background, methods, findings, conclusion) vary by field.

Once registered in the thesis, we will do a 3-month check-in with you and your Thesis Director to ensure progress is being made. If your Thesis Director reports little to no progress, the Dean of Academic Programs reserves the right to issue a thesis not complete (TNC) grade (see Thesis Grading below).

6. Thesis Template, Format Review, and Academic Integrity Check

All ALM thesis projects must written in Microsoft Word and follow a specific Harvard Extension School format. A properly formatted thesis is an explicit degree requirement; you cannot graduate without it.

You are required to use the Extension School  ALM Thesis Template  or the Extension School ALM Thesis Template for Creative Writing  (specifically designed for creative writing degree candidates). The template has all the mandatory thesis formatting built in.

Besides saving you a considerable amount of time as you write your thesis, the template ensures that your submitted thesis meets the mandatory style guidelines for margins, font, title page, table of contents, and chapter headings. If you use the template, format review should go smoothly, if not, a delayed graduation is highly likely.

Your Research Advisor will complete the format review  prior  to submitting your thesis to your Thesis Director for final grading according to the Thesis Timetable (see above).

Academic Integrity. Format review also includes a check on the proper use of sources according to our  academic integrity  guidelines. Violations of our academic integrity policy will be referred to the Administrative Board.

7. Mandatory Thesis Archiving

Once your thesis is finalized, meaning that the required grade has been earned and all edits have been completed, you must upload your thesis to Harvard University’s electronic thesis and dissertation submission system (ETDs).

Uploading your thesis ETDs is an explicit degree requirement; you cannot graduate without completing this step. Furthermore, no changes to the thesis are allowed once it has been graded and archived in ETDs.

The thesis project will be sent to several downstream systems:

• Your work will be preserved using Harvard’s digital repository DASH (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard).
• Metadata about your work will be sent to HOLLIS (the Harvard Library catalog).
• Your work will be preserved in Harvard Library’s DRS2 (digital preservation repository).

By submitting work through ETDs @ Harvard you will be signing the Harvard Author Agreement. This license does not constrain your rights to publish your work subsequently. You retain all intellectual property rights.

For more information on Harvard’s open access initiatives, we recommend you view the Director of the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC), Peter Suber’s brief introduction .

Thesis Grading

You need to earn a grade of B- or higher in the thesis. If you fail to complete substantial work on the thesis, you will earn a grade of TNC (thesis not complete). If you have already earned two withdrawal grades, the TNC grade will count as a zero in your cumulative GPA.

If you earn a grade below B-, you will need to petition the Administrative Board for permission to attempt the thesis for a second and final time. The petition process is only available if you are in good academic standing and your five-year, degree-completion date allows for more time. Your candidacy will automatically expire if you do not successfully complete the thesis by your required date.

If approved for a second attempt, you may be required to develop a new proposal on a different topic by re-enrolling in the CTP and being assigned a different thesis director. Tuition for the second attempt is calculated at the current year’s rate.

If by not passing the thesis you fall into poor academic standing, you’ll need to take additional degree-applicable courses to return to good standing before re-engaging with the thesis process for the second and final time. This is only an option if your five-year, degree-completion date allows for more time.

The Board only reviews cases in which extenuating circumstances prevented the successful completion of the thesis.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

Dissertation Advisor 101

How to get the most from the student-supervisor relationship

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | January 2024

Many students feel a little intimidated by the idea of having to work with a research advisor (or supervisor) to complete their dissertation or thesis. Similarly, many students struggle to “connect” with their advisor and feel that the relationship is somewhat strained or awkward. But this doesn’t need to be the case!

In this post, we’ll share five tried and tested tips to help you get the most from this relationship and pave the way for a smoother dissertation writing process.

Overview: Working With Your Advisor

• Clarify everyone’s roles on day one
• Establish (and stick to) a regular communication cycle
• Develop a clear project plan upfront
• Be proactive in engaging with problems
• Navigate conflict like a diplomat

1. Clarify roles on day one

Each university will have slightly different expectations, rules and norms in terms of the research advisor’s role. Similarly, each advisor will have their own unique way of doing things. So, it’s always a good idea to begin the engagement process by clearly defining the roles and expectations in your relationship.

In practical terms, we suggest that you initiate a conversation at the very start of the engagement to discuss your goals, their expectations, and how they would like to work with you. Of course, you might not like what you hear in this conversation. However, this sort of candid conversation will help you get on the same page as early as possible and set the stage for a successful partnership.

To help you get started, here are some questions that you might consider asking in your initial conversation:

• How often would you like to meet and for how long?
• What should I do to prepare for each meeting?
• What aspects of my work will you comment on (and what won’t you cover)?
• Which key decisions should I seek your approval for beforehand?
• What common mistakes should I try to avoid from the outset?
• How can I help make this partnership as effective as possible?
• My academic goals are… Do you have any suggestions at this stage to help me achieve this?

As you can see, these types of questions help you get a clear idea of how you’ll work together and how to get the most from the relatively limited face time you’ll have.

Need a helping hand?

2. Establish a regular communication cycle

Just like in any relationship, effective communication is crucial to making the student-supervisor relationship work. So, you should aim to establish a regular meeting schedule and stick to it. Don’t cancel or reschedule appointments with your advisor at short notice, or do anything that suggests you don’t value their time. Fragile egos are not uncommon in the academic world, so it’s important to clearly demonstrate that you value and respect your supervisor’s time and effort .

Practically speaking, be sure to prepare for each meeting with a clear agenda , including your progress, challenges, and any questions you have. Be open and honest in your communication, but most importantly, be receptive to your supervisor’s feedback . Ultimately, part of their role is to tell you when you’re missing the mark. So, don’t become upset or defensive when they criticise a specific aspect of your work.

Always remember that your research advisor is criticising your work, not you personally . It’s never easy to take negative feedback, but this is all part of the learning journey that takes place alongside the research journey.

3. Have a clear project plan

Few things will impress your supervisor more than a well-articulated, realistic plan of action (aka, a project plan). Investing the time to develop this shows that you take your project (and by extension, the relationship) seriously. It also helps your supervisor understand your intended timeline, which allows the two of you to better align your schedules .

In practical terms, you need to develop a project plan with achievable goals . A detailed Gantt chart can be a great way to do this. Importantly, you’ll need to break down your thesis or dissertation into a collection of practical, manageable steps , and set clear timelines and milestones for each. Once you’ve done that, you should regularly review and adjust this plan with your supervisor to ensure that you remain on track.

Of course, it’s unlikely that you’ll stick to your plan 100% of the time (there are always unexpected twists and turns in a research project. However, this plan will lay a foundation for effective collaboration between yourself and your supervisor. An imperfect plan beats no plan at all.

4. Engage with problems proactively

One surefire way to quickly annoy your advisor is to pester them every time you run into a problem in your dissertation or thesis. Unexpected challenges are par for the course when it comes to research – how you deal with them is what makes the difference.

When you encounter a problem, resist the urge to immediately send a panicked email to your supervisor – no matter how massive the issue may seem (at the time). Instead, take a step back and assess the situation as holistically as possible. Force yourself to sit with the issue for at least a few hours to ensure that you have a clear, accurate assessment of the issue at hand. In most cases, a little time, distance and deep breathing will reveal that the problem is not the existential threat it initially seemed to be.

When contacting your supervisor, you should ideally present both the problem and one or two potential solutions . The latter is the most important part here. In other words, you need to show that you’ve engaged with the issue and applied your mind to finding potential solutions. Granted, your solutions may miss the mark. However, providing some sort of solution beats impulsively throwing the problem at your supervisor and hoping that they’ll save the day.

Simply put, mishaps and mini-crises in your research journey present an opportunity to demonstrate your initiative and problem-solving skills – not a reason to lose your cool and outsource the problem to your supervisor.

5. Navigate conflict like a diplomat 

As with any partnership, there’s always the possibility of some level of disagreement or conflict arising within the student-supervisor relationship. Of course, you can drastically reduce the likelihood of this happening by implementing some of the points we mentioned earlier. Neverthless, if a serious disagreement does arise between you and your supervisor, it’s absolutely essential that you approach it with professionalism and respect . Never let it escalate into a shouting contest.

In practical terms, it’s important to communicate your concerns as they arise (don’t let things simmer for too long). Simultaneously, it’s essential that you remain open to understanding your supervisor’s perspective – don’t become entrenched in your position. After all, you are the less experienced researcher within this duo.

Keep in mind that a lot of context is lost in text-based communication , so it can often be a good idea to schedule a short call to discuss your concerns or points of contention, rather than sending a 3000-word email essay. When going this route, be sure to take the time to prepare a clear, cohesive argument beforehand – don’t just “thought vomit” on your supervisor.

In the event that you do have a significant disagreement with your advisor, remember that the goal is to find a solution that serves your project (not your ego). This often requires compromise and flexibility. A “win at all costs” mindset is definitely not suitable here. Ultimately, you need to solve the problem, while still maintaining the relationship .

If you feel that you have already exhausted all possible avenues and still can’t find an acceptable middle ground, you can of course reach out to your university to ask for their assistance. However, this should be the very last resort . Running to your university every time there’s a small disagreement will not serve you well.

Recap: Key Takeaways

To sum up, a fruitful student-supervisor relationship hinges on clear role definition , effective and regular communication , strategic planning , proactive engagement , and professional conflict resolution .

Remember, your dissertation supervisor is there to help you, but you still need to put in the work . In many cases, they’ll also be the first marker of your work, so it really pays to put in the effort and build a strong, functional relationship with them.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

Submit a Comment 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.

• Print Friendly

Roles of the Thesis Committee Members

First reader.

Your Thesis Director (also known as your thesis advisor or first reader) will oversee your project from its inception to its final form and will be your primary resource person for matters of substance, organization, and presentation. Your selection of a Thesis Director is an important one, perhaps as important as your choice of the topic itself, and the decision must be made prior to submitting your application (usually during your junior year). In making a decision, consider both a professor’s expertise and his/her interest in your research topic.

General responsibilities include:

• Steering students to a topic that involves original research and current literature
• Helping students obtain necessary supplies/equipment
• Providing training for needed techniques
• Guiding students with procedures and research schedule
• Obtaining IRB approval
• Arranging appropriate number of contact hours per week
• First readers should receive multiple drafts throughout the semester
• First readers will moderate the defense
• Submitting an “S” at the end of the first semester, and final grades for both UNIV 401/402 after the defense

Co-Directors

It is possible for a team of two faculty members to jointly direct a thesis. If your thesis does have co- directors, you will still need to select another faculty member to serve as the “second” reader. In this case, your thesis committee will have four members.

Second Reader

The Second Reader is typically a member of the student’s department with research expertise in the area of the thesis. This reader is selected by the student in consultation with the Thesis Director and must be chosen before the student submits the Senior Thesis proposal (usually during the student’s Junior year).

Your second reader should offer comments as you revise your proposal early in the fall semester and will then approve it. Your second reader will also review and approve your written progress report. You should submit a draft of each chapter of the thesis as you write it during the winter and spring terms. This way, you can take the second reader’s suggestions for revision into account during your research process. Finally, the second reader will read a final draft of the thesis, prepare questions, and attend the defense.

The second reader has the following general responsibilities:

• Offering comments on proposals
• Reviewing and approving progress reports
• Supporting student projects throughout the entirety of the project
• Second readers will receive a final draft of the student’s thesis before the defense
• Second readers will provide signatures on final thesis submissions

Third Reader

The Third Reader represents the University at large, and is selected from the members of the Board of Senior Thesis Readers. This person is not a member of the thesis writer’s Major department, and is not ordinarily an expert in the research area of the thesis. Third Readers are appointed by the Undergraduate Research Program.

Each third reader serves as third reader for 3-5 thesis candidates; these students meet as a group once each semester with their Third Reader to discuss ongoing research. The Third Reader will also review and approve the thesis proposal and progress report. Finally, the Third Reader will read a final draft of the thesis, prepare questions, attend the defense, and fill out and submit the Third Reader Defense Report Form to the Undergraduate Research Program. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in joining the Board of Senior Thesis Readers.

The third reader essentially has two major commitments:

• Third readers can reach out to students through doodlepoll or signupgenius at least a few weeks before presentations are meant to happen
• Third readers are expected to provide an outside opinion related to student projects
• Student presentations will be typically 5-8 minutes, going over essential research questions, current progress, and anticipated steps
• Third readers will receive a final draft of the student’s thesis before the defense
• Third readers are expected to prepare questions and provide concrete feedback on the final thesis
• A Defense Report Form will be sent out, which need to be submitted to the URP office
• Third readers will provide signatures on final thesis submissions

Optional Fourth Reader

It is possible for a team of two faculty members to jointly direct a thesis. In this case, the student will still need to select another faculty member to serve as “second” reader. This would create a four person committee, with two directors, a second reader, and a third reader.

180 South College Avenue Newark, DE 19716, USA [email protected]

• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Arts and Humanities
• Health sciences
• Science and Engineering
• Future international student
• International student
• Doctoral Candidate

Life as a supervisor

Supervising a doctoral candidate is one of the missions of researchers and academic researchers and is an essential step in their career. The term "supervisor" is used to designate the thesis director, the co-director or any person who contributes significantly to the supervision of the doctoral candidate.

Published on 24/06/2020 - Updated on 5/05/2022

The thesis director is the person who signs any administrative documents associated with the doctoral program. He or she develops the subject of the research project in consultation with the doctoral student and ensures its originality, its feasibility within the planned duration, and that all scientific, material and financial conditions are met to guarantee the proper conduct of the research work. The thesis director is also responsible for the scientific direction of the doctoral research project, a responsibility which can be jointly assumed with a thesis co-director. When the co-director is affiliated with another French university, the co-direction is formalised in an agreement signed by both parties. 

Co-supervisors can also contribute to the supervision of the doctoral candidate. In this case, the respective responsibilities and duties of each must be determined with the doctoral candidate from the beginning of the preparation of the doctorate and set out in the training agreement that is signed upon first registration for the doctorate. This agreement may be modified at the time of each re-enrolment. The term “supervisor” therefore encompasses the thesis director, the co-director and any person making a significant contribution to the supervision of the doctoral candidate.

Within the framework of a co-supervision agreement with one or more foreign higher education institutions, doctoral candidates carry out their work under the responsibility, in each of the countries concerned, of a thesis director who carries out their supervisory duties in collaboration with the other thesis director(s).

In France, the habilitation to direct research (HDR) is a national higher education diploma that is required to direct a thesis. (See the decree on doctoral training). However, there are exceptions to meet specific situations.

The missions of thesis directors

Being a thesis director is not only about monitoring the research project, it also means accompanying doctoral candidates in their professional development and preparing their professional future. The function of thesis director therefore includes a strong dimension of managing the work and careers of doctoral candidates, including: supervision of research, implementation of strategies for publishing and promoting results, and drawing up a career development plan.

Thesis directors develop the subject of the research project in consultation with the doctoral candidate. They ensure that it is original, that it is feasible within the envisaged time frame, and that all the scientific, material and financial conditions have been met to guarantee the smooth running of the doctoral candidate's research work. 

Thesis directors individually supervise the doctoral candidates who are under their supervision and commit to regular and frequent appointments to support them with their doctoral project. They have a maximum possible number of doctoral candidates under their responsibility, a number defined by the doctoral school they belong to. Thesis directors validate the scientific quality of the approach followed and the results obtained with the doctoral candidates, and ensure that doctoral candidates acquire autonomy in the course of their research activity. They instil research ethics and scientific integrity into doctoral candidates. 

Thesis directors also ensure that doctoral candidates are well integrated into the scientific community and particularly into the research unit. They accompany doctoral candidates to allow the best possible promotion of their work on a local, national and international scale. 

Thesis directors support doctoral  candidates in their professional project and set up the conditions necessary for the development of their skills and the promotion of the knowledge created by their research. Thesis directors undertake to ensure that the doctoral candidates they supervises have the necessary time to participate in further training, as well as in the life of their research unit and their doctoral school. When other people (co-director or co-supervisor) are involved in the supervision, thesis directors coordinate the supervision team and ensure the coherence of the instructions given to doctoral candidates.

Finally, thesis directors participate in the life of their doctoral school (participation in individual monitoring committees, juries or admission committees, scientific days, etc.).

Accompanying supervisors in their missions

To help the supervisors in their duties, for over 15 years, the doctoral college has been offering them support in the form of workshops in small groups which help them to understand the current issues of doctoral training and the evolution of the supervisor's role. This includes understanding the importance of the professional project for doctoral candidates and the supervisor's responsibility in this area, identifying the skills expected of doctors and supporting their development, knowing how to identify areas of progress in the development of a skill and helping doctoral candidates become an expert in their field. A workshop is also dedicated to the issue of recruitment and integration of doctoral candidates into the research unit.

The reference on the reciprocal commitments of the different actors are defined in the doctoral charter.

Redefining the role of doctoral supervisors: a multicultural examination of labels and functions in contemporary doctoral education

• Open access
• Published: 10 January 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Génesis Guarimata-Salinas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4343-4952 1 ,
• Joan Josep Carvajal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4389-7298 2 &
• M. Dolores Jiménez López   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5544-3210 3  

2054 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This study focuses on the changes that doctoral education has experienced in the last decades and discusses the role of doctoral supervisors. The figure of doctoral supervisor continues to be a subject of much debate; therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a universal, global, and common definition that clearly establishes the roles and functions of doctoral supervisors. Employing a multi-method approach, the study utilized the perspectives of linguistic relativism and prototype theory to understand how linguistic and label diversity may influence the perception and approach to supervisory tasks. We examine a corpus of 55 different labels to refer to “doctoral supervisor.” Data was collected from 116 countries, encompassing 47 different languages and 55 distinct labels from Europe, Africa, America, Asia, and Oceania, forming a unique corpus of information. The results reveal a total of 18 functions to be fulfilled by the doctoral supervisor. Additionally, the findings underscore the significance of linguistic influence in conceptualizing the functions associated with the supervisor in various cultural contexts and highlight the necessity for redefining the role of the thesis supervisor. The results hold potential benefits for doctoral schools and supervisors, serving as guidelines for standardizing the functions of the doctoral supervisor.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Ethics of Postgraduate Supervision: A View from Cultural Studies

Exploring Supervisors’ Perspectives to Enhance Postgraduate Supervision

Research on Doctoral Supervision: What We Have Learnt in the Last 10 Years

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

This study seeks to reveal the importance and influence of language in shaping the definition and attributed functions of doctoral supervisors . Our goal is a coherent, universal, and standardized definition to foster effective communication, harmonize expectations, and encourage intercultural exchanges among academics in the doctoral process.

In recent years, doctoral studies have undergone significant changes, leading to a variety of organizational models and validation procedures (Sarrico, 2022 ). Resignification, a reflective and transformative process, becomes crucial in redefining doctoral studies and the role of the doctoral supervisor. Its modification of the individual’s perception (Sánchez Buitrago, 2009 ) involves giving doctoral studies new meanings and approaches beyond their traditional conception. Particularly, it involves a significant shift in the perception and approach towards the role of the doctoral supervisor, adapting their position and responsibilities to meet the evolving demands of doctoral education and research.

Numerous studies have focused on listing the functions of doctoral supervision but have tended to analyze what supervisors should do rather than what they do (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ). Although progress has been made in defining guidelines for doctoral studies, particularly regarding their importance in higher education, competencies at this level, and program organization, there is still no explicit and comprehensive definition for the doctoral supervisor. Harmonization efforts at the European level have been promoted through ministerial declarations (Bologna Process, 2003 , 2005 , 2007 , 2009 , 2012 ) and contributions from the European University Association (EUA) (European University Association, 2002 , 2003 , 2005 , 2006 ). The European University Association, ( 2002 ) Trends II study revealed progress in the convergence of doctoral studies, leading to the establishment of doctoral schools or centers and the encouragement of joint supervision of doctoral theses. A subsequent review (European University Association, 2003 ) recognized the need to define and regulate the supervisor’s activities as a crucial step towards uniformity and standardization of doctoral studies.

A definition of what a doctoral supervisor is cannot ignore or disregard the current reality of supervision, and therefore, this study examines the diverse terminology used in 47 different languages for the term doctoral supervisor. We consider it to be very important to analyze the labels that each language uses to name the doctoral supervisor because these labels can condition supervision vision and functions. In our study, we consider the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity) that suggests that the language we speak shapes our perception of the world. By analyzing 55 different labels from 116 countries, this study aims to analyze how these labels influence the definition and scope of the functions associated with the role of a doctoral supervisor. The consideration of linguistic relativity in this research serves a dual purpose: (i) unveiling the connections between language and culture and (ii) synthesizing linguistic diversity to achieve an inclusive and applicable definition across various languages and cultural contexts.

The existence of different labels in different languages to refer to the doctoral supervisor highlights linguistic diversity and varied cultural interpretations associated with this role. Moreover, along with the existence of diverse descriptions of this figure in the literature, it becomes evident the lack of a precise definition that aligns with these used labels. These aspects make it impossible to ensure equality and uniformity in supervisory tasks. An Italian supervisor, for example, calling himself relatore (rapporteur) may consider his functions to be different from those of a Romanian supervisor labelled conducatore (conductor). Therefore, we consider necessary to establish a common framework for doctoral education to obtain a solid and clear foundation to adequately understand this role.

This paper is structured as follows. Firstly, we provide a state-of-the-art definition of the doctoral supervisor and the roles associated with this position. Secondly, we describe the methodology of this study by presenting the compilation of the corpus, data collection and the analyses conducted. Thirdly, we present the results of our analysis. Finally, our results are contextualized within the current research landscape, and we highlight the study’s relevance for researchers and professionals.

Literature review

Definitions of doctoral supervisor.

The definitions of doctoral supervisor in the literature are given in terms of enumeration of duties or actions. Within the regulations governing doctoral education, this style of definition is not different. Additionally, authors use various nomenclatures or labels to refer to the doctoral supervisor, such as research supervisor , coach , pathfinder , goalie , supervisor , thesis director , principal supervisor (Bills, 2004 ; Lee & Green, 2009 ; Real Decreto 99 / 2011 , 2011 ; Wichmann-Hansen et al., 2019 ). The use of these different nomenclatures may impact what is expected to be the actual role of the supervisor. EURODOC, ( 2004 ) developed a report for establishing minimum expectations for supervision and found that the literal translation of the word supervisor in different European languages had several meanings: it could be a promoter , director , guide , counsellor , instructor , or Doktorvater while other appellatives were associated with relator or mentor. To understand the extent to which this definition has come to be described, we review, without claiming to be exhaustive, some of the definitions that can be found in the literature on doctoral studies and in the regulations, laws, and documents governing on the doctorate.

The European Commission ( 2005 ) has established a European Charter for Researchers and a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. This code states that supervisors are sufficiently expert in research supervision, have the time, knowledge, experience, and expertise to adequately support the young scientist and provide the necessary progress and review procedures, as well as the necessary feedback mechanisms.

In Spain, the Real Decreto 99 / 2011 , ( 2011 ), which regulates the official doctoral studies, in Article 2 defines the director de tesis (thesis director) as “the person most responsible for conducting all the research tasks of the doctoral student” and in Article 12 establishes that they is “the person responsible for the coherence and suitability of the training activities, for the impact and novelty of the subject matter of the doctoral thesis in their field and for guiding the planning and adaptation, where appropriate, to that of other projects and activities in which the doctoral candidate is enrolled.” Similarly, according to the United Kingdom’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education QAA, ( 2018 ) supervisors should be given sufficient time, support, and opportunities to develop and maintain their supervisory practice. Supervisors should be sensitive to the varying needs of individual research students and provide the associated support that may be required in different situations.

Bills ( 2004 ) defines a research supervisor as the person who captures talent, not necessarily develops it. Such a supervisory structure is derived from the traditional teacher/student supervision model, where doctoral students are expected to acquire skills simply by observing and imitating their research supervisor . A more detailed definition can be found in Lee & Green, ( 2009 ), where supervision is sometimes interpreted as a form of coaching , where the supervisor sometimes encourages the student and sometimes is just standing on the side cheering. According to these authors, a supervisor can be defined as a coach (pushing the doctoral candidates, giving them instructions), a pathfinder (a model, with an ethical obligation to share their knowledge and to accompany the student and task to its completion), or a goalie (standing between the student and what they want to run off and do).

Pearson & Brew, ( 2010 ) suggest that the supervisor is a facilitator of the process in which the doctoral candidate becomes an independent professional researcher, able to adapt to various fields of research, whether in academia or industry. And with the same approach, according to Kiley, ( 2011 ), the principal supervisor is typically the researcher who has overall responsibility for the successful completion of the doctoral candidate. Additionally, she adds that the principal supervisor is also the one who many candidates refer to as my supervisor or the person who they turn to for guidance when needed.

To foster a culture of quality and doctoral candidate success, Friedrich-Nel & Mac Kinnon, ( 2019 ) established that supervisors are those people who effectively manage the supervisory process and meet the challenges of supervision, nurturing, and developing the personal and professional attributes of doctoral candidates to prepare them for employment in an academic setting.

Wichmann-Hansen et al., ( 2019 ) assume that a supervisor is a person with experience of supervising or at least co-supervising doctoral candidates and define principal supervisor as an experienced supervisor because it is equivalent to a senior academic position (associate professor or professor). For Brentel, ( 2019 ), the main supervisor is responsible for organizing the formal process of obtaining a doctorate. They are the person whose main task is to supervise, guide, and support the doctoral candidate in their professional activities. The main supervisor may delegate supervisory functions to a co-supervisor but remains responsible for communicating and verifying the candidate’s progress, especially when there are problems. Alternatively, the main supervisor leads the supervisory team and must ensure that the team’s communication and responsibilities are clearly defined and documented.

The analysis of the definitions described so far, and the use of different nomenclatures primarily provide us with lists of expectations, tasks, roles, and functions related to what a doctoral supervisor “is” and overlooks what they are supposed “to do.”

The roles of doctoral supervisors

Different studies have identified various styles, roles, and skills associated with the supervisor, leading to divergent perspectives on their functions. The lack of consensus regarding specific actions or tasks supervisors should perform in doctoral education is evident in the following review. This dynamic interpretation of roles and functions makes it challenging to understand the true essence of a doctoral supervisor and their exact responsibilities.

From a sociological standpoint, roles , as defined by Merton ( 2002 ), pertain to the set of expectations and behaviors associated with a particular social position. These roles are closely linked to specific social positions and are marked by behaviors that conform to widely recognized social norms (Merton, 2002 ). Approaching the definition of role , in the context of doctoral supervision, Parker-Jenkins, ( 2016 ) established the definition of roles as a set of behaviors, obligations and norms that are conceptualized by people in each social context. On the other hand, Orellana et al., ( 2016 ) defined roles as the functions and tasks involved in the supervision process.

In recent decades, changes in doctoral studies have significantly impacted the roles of supervisors. Many supervisors are aware of these changes (Taylor, 2012 ) and have been the subject of analysis on their productivity, backgrounds, and beliefs influencing the supervisory relationship and students’ trajectories (Chugh et al., 2021 ; González-Ocampo & Castelló, 2018 ). In earlier decades, roles were clearer, with supervisors providing guidance and students responsible for producing seminal theses (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ). Today, the perspective of the doctoral candidate on their development and thesis process plays a crucial role in defining the specific role of the supervisor (Bégin & Gérard, 2013 ).

According to Pearson & Brew, ( 2010 ) and Manathunga, ( 2005 ), the role of the supervisor should be approached from a perspective that encompasses the specific demands of doctoral studies. In their view, the purpose of doctoral studies is to cultivate competent researchers who can effectively adapt to a professional environment. Additionally, Maxwell & Smyth, ( 2010 ) argue that doctoral supervision should be regarded not only as a teaching and learning practice but also as the facilitation of the doctoral candidates’ development and knowledge production within the research project. Pearson & Kayrooz, ( 2004 ) proposed that supervision can be framed as a series of tasks and responsibilities that can be grouped and operationalized as expert coaching , facilitating , mentoring , and reflective practice.

In this research, we classified roles into three perspectives:

Based on supervisory styles

Based on academic support

Based on the exploration of development frameworks

Roles based on supervisory styles

Lee, ( 2008 ) stated that for each concept of research supervision, the supervisor should have more prominent activity. They help students efficiently plan and execute their research activities, provide specific knowledge, and act as guardians of learning resources, expert opinions, and networks, while also challenging and evaluating the candidate’s research progress and findings critically. Additionally, supervisors act as mentors, guiding students through academic and professional challenges to foster personal and intellectual growth. Moreover, they tailor their approach and level of supervision according to the student’s experience, skills, and needs.

Andrew, ( 2007 ) presented a model of supervisory styles that includes two distinct roles:

The supervisor plays the role of expert and manager, providing specific knowledge and guidance.

The supervisor assumes the role of facilitator, fostering student growth and development in a non-directive manner. As the relationship between supervisor and student progresses, this facilitator role tends to become more important and predominant.

Wichmann-Hansen & Herrmann, ( 2017 ) noted significant diversity in the terminology employed to delineate the directive role, which is interpreted as a supervisory style. The supervisor acts as deliverer , where the supervisor urges the student to produce work. As expert coaching , the supervisor offers expertise on the research topic. In the capacity of leadership , the supervisor provides clear guidance. In the role of academic expert , the supervisor suggests many of the ideas and methods to be utilized. Lastly, as project director , the supervisor formally oversees and controls the research process.

Deuchar, ( 2008 ) develops a discussion of supervisory styles and the importance of adaptability. Four paradigms of supervisory styles emerge from his discussion.

Laissez-faire style . It involves the supervisor as an observer, allowing the candidate to independently manage both the research project and themselves.

Pastoral style. The supervisor provides only personal support.

Directorial style . It entails the supervisor offering support in the research project.

Contractual style requires supervisors and students to negotiate the extent of support needed for both the project and personal aspects.

Roles based on academic support

Various terms like mentoring , coaching , and facilitating have been proposed to describe the nature of supervision in doctoral studies. Mentor and coach are the most used terms in the literature. The key distinction between them lies in the broader role of the mentor , who helps the trainee integrate and adapt to a specific field of knowledge, while the coach primarily assists the trainee in completing specific tasks within a defined timeframe (Bégin & Gérard, 2013 ).

Carriero et al., ( 2023 ) emphasize that supervisors can indeed act as mentors, providing guidance on academic research and motivating and guiding young scholars toward specific paths, while also sponsoring projects or publications and supporting fundraising efforts. The differentiation between mentoring and sponsoring is crucial, with mentoring focused on emotional support for personal and professional growth, while sponsoring entails the exercise of influence and power.

Additionally, supervisors adopt different roles in the field of academic publishing: “ prey ” seekers , managers , manuscript reviewers , and masters (Lei & Hu, 2015 ). Some actively collaborate as co-authors, co-writing with their students, while others serve as reviewers, offering valuable feedback and comments (Lepp et al., 2013 ). These findings demonstrate that the supervisor’s role is to support knowledge development in scientific writing and guide students through the writing process in a way that leads to academically desirable results (Augustsson & Jaldemark, 2014 ).

Roles based on the exploration of developmental frameworks

The importance of having a conceptual framework for understanding the supervision process has been recognized by Vilkinas, ( 2008 ). They presented the Integrated Competency Value Framework (ICVF) as a conceptual framework for understanding the process. The ICVF describes various roles and associated activities, including six operational roles for the supervisor: developer , deliverer , monitor , broker , and innovator , and a central role of integrator . These roles provide a clear structure for understanding and addressing the supervisor’s responsibilities in the supervision process.

Murphy et al., ( 2007 ) developed a framework for examining beliefs related to doctoral supervision and found that divergences emerge along two main dimensions. The first dimension relates to the role of the supervisor, where some hold control beliefs, which involve directing and taking responsibility for the research, while others endorse guidance beliefs, which focus on merely guiding the research process. The second dimension concerns the primary focus of supervision, where some emphasize task-centered beliefs, focusing on the research tasks to be performed, while others prioritize person-centered beliefs, focusing on the personal development of candidates. These distinctions, along with the interconnected nature of beliefs within each orientation, underscore the significant influence of beliefs in shaping each approach to supervision.

Based on a classic study of supervisor roles (director , facilitator , adviser , teacher , guide , critic , freedom giver , supporter , friend , manager , examiner) (Brown & Atkins, 1988 ), and using ten of the eleven roles identified in that model, Orellana et al., ( 2016 ) concluded that there are differences in the perceptions of students and supervisors regarding the main roles played by the supervisor in the doctoral process. While supervisors consider themselves to be critic , freedom giver , supporter , and director , doctoral candidates perceived their supervisors as facilitator, teacher , supporter , and manager.

Doctoral supervision is a demanding task, both intellectually and in terms of human relationships. For this reason, we consider it essential to distinguish between who a supervisor is and what they do. Lee & Green, ( 2009 ), drawing on cognitive linguistics, established that supervision should be understood primarily as a metaphor, as a necessarily elusive practice of naming and framing, of working with and within language.

Method and data

This study aims to comprehend the roles of a thesis supervisor using a function-based approach that recognizes linguistic diversity. The goal is to create an inclusive and adaptable definition applicable to various cultural and linguistic contexts. By analyzing functions from 55 labels in 47 languages across 116 countries, the research provides a deeper understanding of the supervisor’s roles, considering specificities and variations in different languages and cultures. Functions are defined as specific supervisory tasks, regardless of the attributed label.

Corpus compilation

To conduct our analysis, we created a corpus of labels designating thesis supervisors in various languages and countries. As there was no global database on doctoral studies regulations, we collected information, country by country, from university web sites offering doctoral programs for all disciplines and continents. In cases where universities did not provide official regulations, we sought additional information from relevant government bodies.

The compilation of the corpus was conducted in three phases:

First step. Labels used to refer to the doctoral supervisor from available regulations and guidelines were extracted. We thoroughly examined official Web sites to identify all definitions and details related to the term “doctoral supervisor” as per available regulations and official documents, focusing on sections related to doctoral studies, doctoral school regulations, university regulations, research supervision, and responsibilities of the doctoral supervisor. Entries in the dataset were recorded with country, language, and institution. Labels were geographically classified: 55 from Europe, 33 from Africa, 29 from the Americas, 20 from Asia, and 5 from Oceania. Through a final process of classification and consolidation, this study identified a total of 55 different labels coming from 116 countries and 47 languages.

Second step. Our objective was to verify and validate the accuracy of the 55 labels. To achieve this, we consulted official dictionaries for each language, recording their definitions. This eliminated any possibility of misinterpretation. We also obtained verbs associated with each label. The selection of verbs was based on their ability to describe commonly understood actions and responsibilities associated with each label in their respective linguistic communities.

Third step. Once the labels and their definitions were verified in their respective languages, their literal translation into English was made. To ensure the accuracy and fidelity of the translations, we relied on dictionaries of the original languages. This meticulous approach ensured that the translations accurately reflected the intended definition of the labels from their original language to English.

The dataset is available at https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.34810/data781 .

A data classification was conducted before analysis. We classified data in two groups: the first group focused on data in the original language, enabling the derivation of functions from the 55 labels in their respective languages. The second group centered on data in major languages, providing insights into the functions prevalent in languages commonly used in official communications and across countries.

Data focused on original language

In accordance with the linguistic relativity framework, which emphasizes how mother tongue shapes an individual’s perception of reality, the first dataset in Table 1 presents a comprehensive collection of 55 labels in their original language and their corresponding English translations.

Cultural influences are reflected in this list of 55 labels, shedding light on the expected roles of the thesis director within their respective linguistic communities. To preserve the principle of linguistic relativity, the direct English translations of these 55 labels were extracted. This decision was made to account for possible unique translations and definitions of the concepts included in these labels, which had not been previously investigated due to the complexities involved in translating them into other languages or the lack of previous research in this regard. Therefore, the English translations in the table represent literal interpretations of the labels.

In addition, a clear distinction was made between two categories of verbs:

Verbs derived directly from the labels themselves.

Verbs extracted from the definitions in the original language.

This differentiation played a crucial role in the analysis, as the definitions provided valuable supplementary information that was relevant for describing the functions in a comprehensive manner.

Data focused on major languages

A second dataset (Table  2 ) provides a breakdown of the frequency of occurrence of the labels across the 116 countries from which we obtained information. It is notable that, despite the existence of 55 different labels, some of them appear more frequently, particularly those associated with the English, French, and Spanish.

Methodology

The methodology started with analyzing data in the original language (Table  1 ) to address the research objective and identify the functions of a thesis supervisor. Verbs were then extracted from the dataset, specifically from the “verb from the label” and “verb from the definition.” These verbs were selected based on their ability to describe common actions and responsibilities in their respective linguistic communities. A frequency analysis was subsequently performed for each verb, counting its occurrences in the dataset. This exhaustive list of verbs offered an initial understanding of the roles a thesis supervisor should fulfill.

Prototype theory

We adopted the Prototype Theory (Rosch, 1973 ) as the analytical framework for data focused on major languages (Table  2 ). This choice has provided us with a deeper understanding of how categories are formed and how prototypes represent the essential characteristics associated with the role of the thesis supervisor. Our aim was to gain a more comprehensive understanding of this role in the context of doctoral studies and compare the results with those from the data focused on original language (Table  1 ).

The prototype theory suggests that categories are represented by central prototypes embodying essential category features. Rosch and Mervis ( 1975 )  demonstrated that categorization relies on family resemblances and shared features rather than strict definitions, highlighting the role of perceptual and conceptual similarity.

Prototype theory, as applied in cognitive psychology, is pivotal for forming and structuring concepts and categories, facilitating efficient information processing and cognitive economy (Hampton, 2006 ). In linguistics, it sheds light on linguistic categorization, language structure, and the categorization of linguistic phenomena. Goldstone & Kersten, ( 2003 ) delve into the cognitive processes of categorization and concept formation, highlighting prototypes as fundamental representations. They also explore the interplay between concepts and language, revealing how language shapes conceptual understanding and abstract communication, while concepts reciprocally shape language. Moreover, prototypes serve as reference points for studying multilingual data, as emphasized by Taylor, ( 1995 ) and Watson, ( 2019 ). The research of Löhr, ( 2020 ), Pollack & Anichenko, ( 2022 ), and Zeifert, ( 2022 , 2023 ) continually advances our understanding of prototype theory and its practical applications.

Prototype theory distinguishes between two types of categories:

Prototypes serve as reference points for categorization, capturing essential shared characteristics among category members. They function as cognitive templates, aiding object or concept classification based on resemblance to the prototype (Rosch, 1973 ).

Categories are mental representations and organizational frameworks for grouping items, events, or ideas with shared attributes. They are not universally fixed but constructed from perceptual and conceptual similarities, cognitive processes, and cultural influences (Rosch & Mervis, 1975 ).

To apply prototype theory in our study and refine function classification, we created a prototype model.

Prototype identification. The frequency analysis of data centered on the primary languages (Table  2 ) revealed the prominence of English, Spanish, and French in labels and official communications within academic and governmental institutions. From this, four prototypes emerged: supervisor , directeur , tutor , and director . Chosen for their high frequency and representation of common role characteristics, these prototypes became representative examples in our research.

Category identification. To refine our prototype model categories, we incorporated synonyms in the original language for each label. Utilizing Sketch Engine software, based on distributional semantic theory (Kilgarriff et al., 2014 ), we automatically identified synonyms. This approach expanded our research by encompassing a range of terms associated with the selected prototype labels in the context of doctoral studies. It enhanced inclusivity and extended our research scope. Using similarity percentages provided by Sketch Engine, we categorized members as either closely or distantly related within each prototype, resulting in a more precise and coherent prototype model.

The results of these two steps are displayed in Table  3 , indicating the label’s language, the corresponding language prototype, synonymous labels, similarity percentages, and associated verbs. In total, across the three primary languages, we collected 62 labels, encompassing both prototypes and categories.

We employed Prototype Theory in our research for multiple reasons:

Its ability to generalize and simplify complex information allowed us to pinpoint the most representative and characteristic elements of the doctoral supervisor concept.

It streamlined categorization by enabling classification based on similarities and resemblances with identified prototypes, simplifying organization and relationship identification among different functions.

Its flexibility and adaptability acknowledge that concepts can vary and have nuances in different contexts, promoting a broader, more open understanding while avoiding rigidity. This also accommodated the inclusion of new functions or adjustments in our definition.

Frequency results of actions associated to labels

To identify thesis supervisor functions, we conducted a frequency analysis of verbs extracted from both the 55 labels and their definitions (Table  1 ). The outcomes in Table  4 present a quantitative depiction of the actions linked to each label, supplying valuable insights into the primary activities within this role.

“Supervise” is the predominant primary action in all languages, featuring in 13 labels as a primary action, in 4 as a secondary action, and in 1 as a tertiary action. Additionally, “direct” and “guide” rank are the second and third most common actions, underscoring their significance in doctoral supervision. “Lead” follows as the fourth most common, reinforcing its relevance. Frequent appearances of “manage” and “advise” highlight their roles in guidance and counseling. Verbs ranked 7 to 18 have lower frequencies, suggesting variations in how doctoral supervisor functions are perceived across linguistic and cultural contexts. While less frequent, these verbs provide insights into additional dimensions of the role, which different linguistic contexts consider relevant and offer valuable information about complementary aspects of the role.

This frequency analysis reveals the multifaceted nature of thesis supervisor functions, emphasizing their synergistic relationship with other previously overlooked actions in the literature and normative documents. These observed results are significantly influenced by the principle of linguistic relativity, underscoring the substantial impact of the labels’ native languages. This phenomenon illustrates that the prioritization of verbs is closely tied to their linguistic and cultural origins. The prominence of specific verbs is rooted in unique linguistic nuances, underscoring the role of language in shaping research outcomes.

Prototypical models

Incorporating prototype theory and synonymy enhanced our representation of the supervisor’s functions, providing a more comprehensive and accurate perspective. The prototypical models, depicted in Fig.  1 , were developed for this study. Initially, we selected the four most representative labels from each language and designated them as prototypes at the center of each model:

Supervisor for English.

Directeur for French.

Tutor and director for Spanish.

Prototypical models. Three levels of categorization have been established for each prototype model

Subsequently, we placed the corresponding categories, guided by the synonymy values in Table  3 , in a position relative to the center. We organized them based on their proximity, prioritizing those with greater similarity. In total, 58 synonyms were identified for evaluation through prototype theory:

Eleven synonyms were obtained for supervisor.

Eleven synonyms for directeur.

Eighteen synonyms for tutor.

Eighteen synonyms for director.

In the English prototype model, the supervisor is the central figure responsible for supervising the doctoral candidate’s research work. The levels of categorization are:

Level 1 : involves a direct focus on research supervision and management. Categories such as coordinator, administrator, and assistant describe roles that encompass organization, administrative management, and additional support.

Level 2 : carries a broader connotation of direction and leadership . Categories such as advisor, inspector , leader , and manager focus on providing thematic guidance, evaluating progress, leading projects, and managing resources.

Level 3 : reflects an institutional and evaluative representation . Categories such as representative , chief , teacher , and assessor imply roles related to representation, authority, teaching, and evaluation of research work.

In the French prototype model, the directeur is the central figure responsible for directing the student’s research work. The levels of categorization are:

Level 1 : focuses on research direction and supervision . Categories such as responsable and adjoint refer to roles of assuming responsibility and providing assistance. Président is associated with a role of directing or being in charge in the context of the thesis.

Level 2 : implies a broader scope of leadership and overall management. It encompasses labels such as chef , général , fondateur , and administrateur . These verbs imply the execution of tasks related to exerting authority within the doctoral student relationship, establishing thesis guidelines, and carrying out roles in direction and administration.

Level 3 : specific roles of professor, evaluator, and representative. This category includes labels such as as professeur , inspecteur , patron , and représentant . These verbs signify involvement in functions like serving as a professor and thesis director, assessing research work, taking on leadership roles, and representing the doctoral candidate in the academic context.

In the first Spanish prototype model, the tutor is the central figure responsible for tutoring the student’s research work. The levels of categorization are:

Level 1 : focus on education, instruction, and direct supervision of the thesis. Categories such as educador , instructor , docente , coordinador , asesor , and supervisor have specific roles in education and supervision.

Level 2 : carries a connotation of broader roles in the academic field and thesis management . It includes labels such as académico , mentor , administrador , profesor , cuidador , and especialista.

Level 3 : specific functions of research, counseling, and organization . It groups labels such as investigador , consejero , gestor , colaborador , organizador , and maestro.

In the second Spanish prototype model, the director is the central figure responsible for directing the student’s research work. The levels of categorization are:

Level 1 : focus on leadership functions and direct responsibility in thesis direction. It includes categories such as jefe , profesor , presidente , representante , responsable , and maestro.

Level 2 : broader aspects of the academic field , such as collaboration , research , and management . It includes labels such as líder , compañero , investigador , especialista , gerente , and experto.

Level 3 : specific functions of coordination , counseling , and collaboration in the development of the thesis. It groups labels such as coordinador , colaborador , autoridad , consejero , docente , and asesor.

From prototypical models to verbs: frequency results

Starting from the 62 labels that make up the prototypical models (prototypes and categories) in the three languages considered, we extracted the verb associated with each of these tags and calculated its frequency. The results are shown in Table  5 .

These 30 verbs extracted from the prototypical models in the three most representative languages (Table  5 ) were compared with the 18 verbs identified in the original language labels and their definitions (Table  4 ). The outcome of this comparison is presented in Table  6 , with matching verbs highlighted in bold.

In essence, the compilation of verbs derived from the prototypical models served to affirm and validate the significance of the 18 verbs extracted from the comprehensive analysis of the 55 original labels. This set of 18 verbs, identified through this process, provides the foundation for establishing the expected functions of a doctoral supervisor.

Functions vs. definitions and roles

The preliminary objective of this study was to determine the functions that a doctoral supervisor must fulfill. The finding of 18 functions that should be attributed to the doctoral supervisor represents a significant advancement in the field of doctoral supervision. This is because our functions go beyond the traditional definitions of a doctoral supervisor, which are usually based on their formal title or position. While previous literature has focused on what a supervisor “is” in terms of roles, general responsibilities, and academic position (Wichmann-Hansen et al., 2019 ), our 18 functions reveal what a supervisor actually “does” to actively engage in the research process of the doctoral student. By comparing our 18 functions with the definitions and roles from the literature, we identified existing gaps and limitations. We observed that only half of the functions explicitly coincide with those mentioned in the literature.

We found that the function to guide is related to the concept of providing appropriate support and guidance to the student (Andrew, 2007 ; Brentel, 2019 ; Brown & Atkins, 1988 ; European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, 2005; Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ; Kiley, 2011 ). Similarly, the function to manage highlights the importance of planning and organizing activities that the supervisor must fulfill in the research process (Andrew, 2007 ; Brown & Atkins, 1988 ; Friedrich-Nel & Mac Kinnon, 2019 ; Lei & Hu, 2015 ; Orellana et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, the function to supervise is related to the process of supervising research towards the doctoral candidate (Brentel, 2019 ; Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ; Anne Lee, 2008 ). Additionally, the function to mentor involves helping the doctoral candidate integrate and adapt to a specific field of expertise (Bégin & Gérard, 2013 ; Anne Lee, 2008 ; Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004 ).

Regarding guiding the research tasks of the doctoral student, we have identified that the functions to direct and to conduct have also been identified (Brown & Atkins, 1988 ; Deuchar, 2008 ; Orellana et al., 2016 ). Additionally, it appears the function to advise , which is related to providing recommendations and advice to the doctoral candidate (Brown & Atkins, 1988 ), the function to sponsor , that is related to sponsoring projects or publications and supporting fundraising efforts (Carriero et al., 2023 ), and the function to lead , related to leading the supervision team (Brentel, 2019 ). Lastly, the function to instruct has also been identified in the literature which emphasizes teaching and developing specific skills for the doctoral candidate (Lee & Green, 2009 ).

However, we identified some discrepancies and omissions. The functions to care , to promote , to train , to boss , to consult , to report , to rule , and to tutor have not been explicitly detailed in existing literature, but their inclusion depends on the interpretative lens employed. These supplementary functions may encompass complementary dimensions overlooked in prior research. Therefore, with our expanded set, it becomes apparent that conventional descriptions may fall short in comprehensively portraying the complexity and full extent of actions undertaken by a doctoral supervisor.

From prototype to functions

The methodology based on the prototype theory played a fundamental role in our research by allowing the identification of the most representative and characteristic elements within the concept of the doctoral supervisor. It streamlined the categorization and classification of the functions according to similarities with the identified prototypes, simplifying the organization process and allowing us to discern the relationships between the different functions. Consequently, we summarized the set into 30 functions (cf. Table 5 ), which effectively represent the core actions that characterize the doctoral supervisor in the three languages analyzed. Notable similarities include a primary focus on research supervision and management, encompassing aspects of organization, administrative oversight, and additional support, highlighting a broader understanding of leadership and the representation of institutional and evaluative responsibility.

The flexibility and adaptability of this methodology allowed us to recognize that the concept of doctoral supervisor may have variations and nuances in different contexts and languages, fostering a broader and more open understanding. So, if we can generate a new definition based on this methodology, it will represent a significant achievement. We have been able to validate and confirm 10 out of the 18 functions identified early in the literature (cf. Table 6 ). But there are still 8 functions do not reference before that must be included in the functions that a doctoral supervisor must perform.

A definition of doctoral supervisor

Defining the role of a doctoral supervisor with clarity, accuracy, and precision has posed a long-standing challenge in higher education research. While some supervisors recognize the evolving landscape of higher education and the changing nature of their responsibilities (Taylor, 2012 ), this research has, for the first time, revealed a significant number of essential functions that the doctoral supervisor must execute in the development of a doctoral thesis.

According to Medina Guerra, ( 2003 ), a definition is an interpretative construct based on the use of words. Lara ( 2004 ) classifies explanatory definitions as those that highlight real differences in vocabulary and text, corresponding to the actual use of speakers, allowing for a precise understanding of the defined term. These definitions have a heuristic function, enriching semantic comprehension, and act as an interpretative device, exemplified using the label “ supervisor ” in English. They also have a cultural function, understanding the meaning within the cultural context. Meaning is not simply limited to reference to real objects; it is an inherent phenomenon of the language itself. An effective explanatory definition is thus a cultural definition that reflects the particularities of the linguistic community.

Based on this concept of an explanatory definition, we establish the definition of a doctoral supervisor, delineating the 18 functions identified during our research. The sequence of these 18 functions follows the frequency order obtained in Table  4 :

To supervise: involves overseeing and providing general direction to the doctoral candidate’s research process, ensuring the fulfillment of thesis objectives and the quality of the work.

To direct: signifies providing guidance and leadership in the development of the doctoral thesis, ensuring that guidelines are followed, and planned outcomes are achieved.

To guide: refers to providing advice and support in designing and executing the research project, ensuring that the doctoral candidate stays on the right track.

To lead: implies taking a leadership and motivational role in the research process, inspiring and encouraging progress.

To manage: means handling the resources and time related to the thesis, ensuring proper efficiency and organization.

To advise: involves providing expert recommendations and advice to enhance the quality and relevance of the research.

To mentor: refers to guiding and supporting the doctoral candidate in developing their academic and professional skills.

To care: signifies showing concern and attention towards the doctoral candidate’s academic and emotional well-being during the research process.

To promote: involves fostering the doctoral candidate’s progress and success, supporting their achievements and efforts in research.

To instruct: refers to providing specific instructions and guidance on technical and methodological aspects of the research work.

To train: means providing training and development of relevant skills for research and academic work.

To boss (be in charge of): implies being responsible for supervising and directing the work of the research student, making decisions, and providing guidance and direction to ensure research and academic tasks are accomplished.

To consult: refers to providing professional or expert advice to enhance the focus and quality of the thesis.

To report: signifies communicating and sharing the progress and results of the research with the doctoral candidate and other stakeholders.

To rule: governing or exercising authority and control over doctoral candidate. It can also imply taking decisions, setting regulations, and being in a position of power or leadership.

To conduct: refers to guiding and directing the doctoral candidate during the research process.

To sponsor: assumes responsibility for the actions, statements, and obligations of the doctoral student throughout the learning period, additionally ensuring the protection of the student during this phase.

To tutor: implies guiding and supporting the doctoral candidate in a more individualized manner in developing specific skills and knowledge.

From the above functions, we propose a definition for the concept of “ doctoral supervisor ”:

Definition: (place the label in your native language): is the person who accompanies the doctoral candidate throughout the thesis development process, taking an active role and fulfilling the following functions: they oversee and provides general direction to the doctoral candidate’s research process, ensuring that thesis objectives are met and maintaining work quality. They offer guidance and leadership during thesis development, ensuring adherence to guidelines and desired outcomes. Additionally, they provide advice and support in research design and execution, ensuring the doctoral candidate stays on track. They also take a leadership and motivational role, inspiring progress and ensuring efficient resources and time management. Furthermore, they offer expert recommendations to enhance research quality and relevance. They guide and support the doctoral candidate’s academic and professional skills development, showing concern for their well-being and fostering success in research. Moreover, they give specific instructions and guidance on technical and methodological aspects of the research work. They are responsible for supervising and directing the doctoral candidate’s work, making decisions, and providing guidance to achieve research and academic goals. Additionally, they provide professional advice to improve the focus and quality of the thesis. They communicate and share research progress and results with the doctoral candidate and other stakeholders, while ensuring compliance with academic and research standards. Finally, they guide and direct the doctoral candidate throughout the process, assuming responsibility for their actions and protecting them during the learning period.

The objective of utilizing linguistic relativism in this research to create a definition is to acknowledge and respect the diversity of cultural and linguistic perspectives in shaping the meaning of a doctoral supervisor. The evidence and data we worked with in this research have aided us in understanding that language reflects an interpretation of human wisdom and carries a multitude of cultural elements that are reflected in higher education. By applying the approach of linguistic relativism in our definition, we avoid imposing a singular view and embrace the multiplicity of meanings in different cultural and linguistic contexts. Thus, the definition of a doctoral supervisor we propose becomes more flexible and contextualized, sensitive to the diverse interpretations within the academic community.

Conclusions

The knowledge society’s paradigm positions doctorate holders as pivotal actors in research and development (R&D) generation and transfer, bridging the gap between R&D institutions and society. Universities play a central role in preparing future doctoral graduates, but the evolving requirements of doctoral education, as indicated by the Dublin Descriptors for third cycle degrees, present new complexities. Meeting these challenges requires professionalizing doctoral supervision, aligning it with institutional policies.

Considering the transformative changes in doctoral education, a process of “resignification” in doctoral supervision is emerging. Resignification calls for a shift in the university community’s mindset and the specific training of supervisors to meet the demands of the evolving supervision model. In this context, the roles and functions of key stakeholders are instrumental. This paper primarily focuses on the supervisor’s role.

Our analysis of 55 labels in 47 languages addresses a problem: while the functions of the supervisor have evolved significantly, the label remains unchanged. We claim that a definition of supervisor cannot ignore or disregard the reality of supervision today. To account for the reality of supervision today, we propose a definition close to/ the actual practices, while emphasizing resignification. Supported by linguistic relativity, which underscores the intimate relationship between linguistic influences, cultural norms, and the individual styles of speakers, our research unveils the connections between language and culture. This reveals the richness and complexity of linguistic diversity attributed by each culture and country into the function of a doctoral supervisor through various labels. Consequently, this enables the formulation of a more flexible and context-sensitive definition of a doctoral supervisor, reflecting the multiplicity of meanings within diverse cultural contexts. The aim is to regulate and facilitate the supervisor’s work, ensuring success. Our investigation highlights that the supervisor’s role is more active and dynamic than previously understood in the literature on roles.

With our work, we do not intend to change the label with which supervisors are called in different languages, of course, but we do intend to change its meaning so that a doctoral supervisor, whatever they are called, always and everywhere perform the same functions. Only in this way can we begin to ensure that the doctoral degree has the same value and meaning wherever it is obtained. While some studies suggest that increased regulation in supervision may challenge the supervisor’s prominence (Cardoso et al., 2022 ), this study presents an innovative perspective by identifying and detailing a total of 18 crucial functions for this role. Of these functions, 10 are confirmed through prototype theory, and 9 through literature review. Hence, it is imperative to acknowledge and consider all these 18 functions, as they address complementary aspects that have not been fully identified until now, signifying the true extent of actions performed by a doctoral supervisor.

The redefinition of the “thesis supervisor” is imperative, requiring the assignment of new roles, functions, and updated value to align with evolving demands in doctoral education and research. In general, redefining doctoral studies aims to transform them into meaningful learning experiences that have a positive impact on academia and society at large, taking a broader and more creative perspective on their purpose and possibilities.

One pathway to achieve this redefinition of the supervisor’s role is to provide specific training to enable doctoral supervisors to perform their role effectively. Our doctoral supervisors should not learn in isolation or lack the tools to fulfill their roles. These training programs should focus on the necessary competencies identified in our research and contribute to the professionalization of this profession. The utility of our research findings we believe will serve a starting point in academic development workshops for supervisors. We believe it will enhance discussions regarding supervision during training sessions, fostering a more comprehensive understanding and discussion of supervisory practices. Consequently, supervisors will be better prepared to guide their doctoral candidates through the research and academic formation process.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that while this definition of the doctoral supervisor may be appealing, it remains largely a theoretical construct. Therefore, to uphold the worldwide quality of doctoral supervision, it is imperative for institutions that can expend the doctoral degree to establish explicit regulations and guidelines. Consequently, the necessity to enhance doctoral regulations by implementing clear guidelines and standards becomes evident, ensuring coherence and excellence in doctoral supervision. Additionally, the establishment of a comprehensive global database for doctoral studies will facilitate transparency, collaboration, and innovation among institutions. Finally, embracing the suitable term for thesis supervisor in their respective native languages will foster inclusivity, honor cultural diversity, and promote effective communication within the global academic community.

Limitations and ideas for future research

Due to the absence of a consolidated global database, we limited this study to the labels from regulations of universities or institutions with information available on the Internet. We consider this to have been an important limitation of our research, since we were unable to include universities or countries where, despite having university regulations, the corresponding information was not available on their websites. Consequently, these institutions were excluded during the multicultural analysis. For future research, broadening the scope to cover a larger number of higher education institutions, together with a longitudinal study, could provide a more complete understanding of changes in the roles of doctoral supervisors and their impact on the success of doctoral students. In addition, institutional language often prioritizes goals and aspirations rather than accurately reflecting practical realities. Therefore, in the future, more empirical research will be conducted that directly examines the real experiences of candidates, supervisors, including co-supervisors in practice. Moreover, exploration of evaluation systems to measure the effectiveness of supervisors and co-supervisors is warranted. Finally, investigating the influence of academic development workshops for supervisors on behavioral changes in the performance of their duties is another crucial area for research .

Data availability

The dataset is available https://doi.org/10.34810/data781 . License/Data Use Agreement [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.] CC BY 4.0.

Andrew, A. (2007). Supervisory power and postgraduate supervision. The International Journal of Management Education, 6 (2), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.3794/ijme.62.179

Article   Google Scholar  

Augustsson, G., & Jaldemark, J. (2014). Online supervision: A theory of supervisors’ strategic communicative influence on student dissertations. Higher Education, 67 (1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9638-4

Bégin, C., & Gérard, L. (2013). The role of supervisors in light of the experience of doctoral students. Policy Futures in Education, 11 (3), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.3.267

Bills, D. (2004). Supervisors’ conceptions of research and the implications for supervisor development. International Journal for Academic Development, 9 (1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000296099

Bologna Process. (2003). Berlin Communiqué - Realising the European Higher Education Area. In European Higher Education Area . https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2003_Berlin/28/4/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf

Bologna Process. (2005). Bergen Communiqué - The European Higher Education Area - Achieving the Goals. In European Higher Education Area . https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2005_Bergen_Communique_english_580520.pdf

Bologna Process. (2007). London Communiqué - Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world. In European Higher Education Area . https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2007_London/69/7/2007_London_Communique_English_588697.pdf

Bologna Process. (2009). Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve. In European Education (Vol. 40, Issue 2). https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2009_Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve/06/1/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communique_April_2009_595061.pdf

Bologna Process. (2012). Bucharest Communiqué - Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area. In European Higher Education Area . https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2012_Bucharest/67/3/Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf

Brentel, H. (2019). Doctoral supervision: handbook for establishing a productive and supportive supervision culture. Helmut Brentel. https://books.google.es/books?id=GwzexgEACAAJ

Atkins, M., & Brown, G. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203221365

Cardoso, S., Santos, S., Diogo, S., Soares, D., & Carvalho, T. (2022). The transformation of doctoral education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education, 84 (4), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5

Carriero, R., Coda Zabetta, M., Geuna, A., & Tomatis, F. (2023). Investigating PhDs’ early career occupational outcomes in Italy: Individual motivations, role of supervisor and gender differences. Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01068-y

Chugh, R., Macht, S., & Harreveld, B. (2021). Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: A literature review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1955241

Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend?: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13 (4), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802193905

EURODOC. (2004). European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers - Gathering of Evidence and Development of a European Supervision and Training Charter. https://eurodoc.net/oldwebsite/2004_Eurodoc_GatheringEvidence_Training_Supervision_Charter1.pdf

European Commission. (2005). European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. In Official Journal of the European Union . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32005H0251

European University Association. (2002). Trends II: towards the European higher education area : survey of main reforms from Bologna to Prague. In European University Association . https://eua.eu/resources/publications/676:trends-ii-towards-the-european-higher-education-area-survey-of-main-reforms-from-bologna-to-prague.html

European University Association. (2003). Trends III: Progress towards the European Higher Education Area. Bologna four years after: Steps toward sustainable reform of higher education in Europe. In European University Association . https://eua.eu/resources/publications/674:trends-2003-progress-towards-the-european-higher-education-area.html

European University Association. (2005). Trends IV: European Universities Implementing Bologna. In European University Association . https://eua.eu/resources/publications/390:trends-2005-european-universities-implementing-bologna  .html

European University Association. (2006). Annual Report 2005 - European University Association. In European University Association . https://eua.eu/resources/publications/691:eua-annual-report-2005.html

Friedrich-Nel, H., & Mac Kinnon, J. (2019). The quality culture in doctoral education: Establishing the critical role of the doctoral supervisor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56 (2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1371059

Goldstone, R. L., & Kersten, A. (2003). Concepts and categorization. In Handbook of psychology: Experimental psychology, 4 : 599–621. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0422 .

González-Ocampo, G., & Castelló, M. (2018). Writing in doctoral programs: Examining supervisors’ perspectives. Higher Education, 76 (3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0214-1

Gruzdev, I., Terentev, E., & Dzhafarova, Z. (2020). Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities. Higher Education, 79 (5), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w

Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798

Hampton, J. (2006). Concepts as Prototypes. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory, 46 , 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(06)46003-5

Kiley, M. (2011). Developments in research supervisor training: Causes and responses. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (5), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594595

Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1 (1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9

Lara, L.F. (2004). De la definición lexicográfica . El Colegio de México. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/74248

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202

Lee, A., & Green, B. (2009). Supervision as metaphor. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (6), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597168

Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2015). Apprenticeship in scholarly publishing: A student perspective on doctoral supervisors’ roles. Publications, 3 (1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3010027

Lepp, L., Remmik, M., Karm, M., & Leijen, A. (2013). Supervisors’ conceptions of doctoral studies. Trames, 17 (4), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2013.4.06

Löhr, G. (2020). Concepts and categorization: Do philosophers and psychologists theorize about different things? Synthese, 197 (5), 2171–2191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1798-4

Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of research supervision: “turning the light on a private space.” International Journal for Academic Development, 10 (1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440500099977

Maxwell, T. W., & Smyth, R. (2010). Research supervision: The research management matrix. Higher Education, 59 (4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9256-3

Medina Guerra, A. M. (2003). La microestructura del diccionario: la definición . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:170967279

Merton, R. K. (2002). Social theory and structure , (4ª ed). México D.F. - Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. 

Murphy, N., Bain, J. D., & Conrad, L. (2007). Orientations to research higher degree supervision. Higher Education, 53 (2), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-5608-9

Orellana, M. L., Darder, A., Pérez, A., & Salinas, J. (2016). Improving doctoral success by matching PhD students with supervisors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11 (January), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.28945/3404

Parker-Jenkins, M. (2016). Mind the gap: Developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1153622

Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2010). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986c

Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9 (1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000296107

Pollack, J., & Anichenko, E. (2022). The ten differences between programs and projects, and the problems they cause. EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, 34 (2), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2021.1900661

QAA. (2018). UK Quality Code for Higher Education. The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies . https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/qualifications-frameworks.pdf

Real Decreto 99/2011 (2011) de 28 de enero, por el que se regulan las enseñanzas oficiales de doctorado. Boletín Oficial del Estado 13909.  https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2011/01/28/99/con

Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4 (3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9

Sánchez Buitrago, J. O. (2009). The redefinition: A method for transforming management practices in educational institutions. Praxis, 5 (1), 183–200.

Google Scholar  

Sarrico, C. S. (2022). The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. Higher Education, 84 (6), 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1

Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.

Taylor, S. E. (2012). Changes in doctoral education. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3 (2), 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/17597511311316973

Vilkinas, T. (2008). An exploratory study of the supervision of Ph.D./research students’ theses. Innovative Higher Education, 32 (5), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9057-5

Watson, R. (2019). Language as category: Using prototype theory to create reference points for the study of multilingual data. Language and Cognition, 11 (1), 125–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.9

Wichmann-Hansen, G., Godskesen, M., & Kiley, M. (2019). Successful development programs for experienced doctoral supervisors–what does it take? International Journal for Academic Development, 25 (2), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1663352

Wichmann-Hansen, G., & Herrmann, K. J. (2017). Does external funding push doctoral supervisors to be more directive? A Large-Scale Danish Study. Higher Education, 74 (2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0052-6

Zeifert, M. (2022). Rethinking hart: From open texture to prototype theory—analytic philosophy meets cognitive linguistics. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 35 (2), 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09722-9

Zeifert, M. (2023). Basic level categorisation and the law. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 36 (1), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09928-z

Download references

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 945413 and from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departament de Gestió d’Empreses, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

Génesis Guarimata-Salinas

Departament de Química Física I Inorgànica, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

Joan Josep Carvajal

Departament de Filologies Romàniques, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

M. Dolores Jiménez López

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the study conception, design and writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Génesis Guarimata-Salinas .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

This work reflects only the author’s view and the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

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 licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Guarimata-Salinas, G., Carvajal, J.J. & Jiménez López, M.D. Redefining the role of doctoral supervisors: a multicultural examination of labels and functions in contemporary doctoral education. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01171-0

Download citation

Accepted : 13 December 2023

Published : 10 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01171-0

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

• Doctoral supervision
• Supervisor role
• Doctoral supervisor
• Academic development of supervisors
• Doctoral studies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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.

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

• Dissertation & Thesis Editing
• Books and Journal Articles
• Coaching and Consultation
• Research Assistance
• Quantitative
• Qualitative
• Coaching & Consultation
• Document Review Service
• Pricing & Payments
• Make Payment
• Editing and Statistics Packages
• Self-Publication Services Pricing
• Meet The Team
• Client Testimonials

What does a Dissertation Advisor, Dissertation Chair, or Thesis Advisor do?

20th October 2016

Tagged under: Uncategorized  

The people at Dissertation Editor are knowledgeable in several areas of study. I have found their services to be most valuable and helpful throughout my dissertation journey. APA editing, punctuation, and sometimes appropriate grammar are not my strongest areas. While using the services of DE I discovered that I could just write my dissertation and not have to worry about the editing process as much as I would without them. DE made the dissertation journey tolerable. I will continue to use their services until my journey is complete.

Read More Client Testimonials

Dissertation Editor

+1 857-600-2241 info@dissertation-editor.com 1 Mifflin Place, Suite 400, Cambridge, MA 02138

© 2024 PhD Advantage, LLC , all rights reserved.

Academic Integrity Policy   Policies, Terms & Conditions   Referral Rewards   Privacy Policy   Site map

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's the difference in responsibilities between a committee member, a co-advisor and an advisor in an PhD committee?

What are the differences in responsibilities among them? Can anybody give me an example to elucidate that. Also why are non-tenured faculty more interested in a co-adviser role than a committee member role?

• research-process

2 Answers 2

The advisor is the person who is formally recognized as the person most responsible for supervising the student's thesis research. A co-advisor is a person who also works with the doctoral candidate, but often in a secondary role (perhaps providing scientific but not financial support, for instance).

In my own case, for instance, I had two advisors who were fully equal in both supervising the research and supporting it financially. However, formally one of them had to be in charge of the thesis research—I believe they decided it by a coin flip.

The thesis committee is a body that convenes only sporadically (although sometimes on a regular schedule) to ensure that a doctoral candidate is progressing according to expectations. The committee—which usually includes the advisor and several other faculty members (or other advisors)—is also usually responsible for deciding when a candidate is ready to schedule a defense of the thesis and graduate.

As you can see, this is a very different role than a co-advisor, who takes on a much more active role in supervising and guiding the doctoral candidate's work. While a thesis committee member rarely is a co-author on a paper with the candidate, a co-advisor often will be. Consequently, it's much more useful for a faculty member to be a co-advisor than simply a committee member. (The latter role will not carry anywhere near as much "credit" toward a tenure case as being an advisor or a co-advisor.)

• @aeiesmail ,i am just afraid my PhD advisor might think i am trying to promote my MS advisor by bringing her in as an co-adviser. –  user14285 Commented Apr 18, 2014 at 21:23
• My experience was similar, in that I had two supervisors who were equal in terms of input. Rather than forcing one of them to be a co-supervisor, the institution allows them to share the role, and share the credit, equally. Incidentally, my chair (our word for committee member) also occasionally acted as a third supervisor as his area of expertise was also helpful to my thesis. –  Jangari Commented Apr 19, 2014 at 2:36
• @user14285: If you're only going to consult with your MS advisor sporadically, he need only be a thesis committee member. If he's going to be a co-author, then he should probably be a co-advisor as well. –  aeismail Commented Apr 19, 2014 at 12:32

This breakdown of the different roles comes from the University of Melbourne:

Principal supervisor (i.e. advisor) An appropriately qualified person who takes primary responsibility for the academic supervision of a candidate’s research and candidature

Co-supervisor (co-advisor) An appropriately qualified person designated to assist in the academic supervision of a candidate's research and candidature

Advisory committee chair (committee member) A registered principal supervisor in the administrative department of the candidate who is neither a supervisor of the candidate nor associated with the research project and who is appointed to oversee the advisory committee

In committee meetings (12 month confirmation, 2 year review, etc.) the chair organises the paperwork, basically. They are also there if the candidate needs to confide about their supervisors and potentially make a complaint if one of the supervisors' actions is unethical, or if there is some kind of professional or personal issue between them and the candidate.

As to your second question, I would suggest that non-tenured staff/faculty would push to be a co-adviser rather than committee member, because it raises their supervisory profile whereas being a committee member is really just a bureaucratic position. When applying for tenure-track positions, employers will look at the theses that the person has supervised or co-supervised, in addition to a range of other things, obviously.

You must log in to answer this question.

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

• Featured on Meta
• Site maintenance - Mon, Sept 16 2024, 21:00 UTC to Tue, Sept 17 2024, 2:00...
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...

Hot Network Questions

• PCB layout guidelines Magnetic Sensor
• Why do I often see bunches of medical helicopters hovering in clusters in various locations
• How is switching of measurement ranges in instruments, like oscilloscopes, realized nowadays?
• How can a microcontroller (such as an Arduino Uno) that requires 7-21V input voltage be powered via USB-B which can only run 5V?
• How can a D-lock be bent inward by a thief?
• Why is resonance such a widespread phenomenon?
• Philosophical dogma hindering scientific progress?
• Remove all punctuation AND the values after it at end of string in R
• Doesn't nonlocality follow from nonrealism in the EPR thought experiment and Bell tests?
• In this page of Ein Yaakov on Sotah, near the bottom of the page, appears the word "Piska" in bold lettering. What does it signify?
• Why was Esther included in the canon?
• Navigating career options after a disastrous PhD performance and a disappointed advisor?
• Was Willy Wonka correct when he accused Charlie of stealing Fizzy Lifting Drinks?
• How do I go about writing a tragic ending in a story while making it overall satisfying to the reader?
• How did people know that the war against the mimics was over?
• Is this a misstatement of Euclid in Halmos' Naive Set Theory book?
• Why were there so many OSes that had the name "DOS" in them?
• Engaging students in the beauty of mathematics
• Father and Son treasure hunters that ends with finding one last shipwreck (childrens/young adult)
• Single pole switch with two hot wires?
• Connections vertically and horizontally
• Example of two dinatural transformations between finite categories that do not compose
• The consequence of a good letter of recommendation when things do not work out
• Is it a correct rendering of Acts 1,24 when the New World Translation puts in „Jehovah“ instead of Lord?

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

• Code of Ethics
• Dissertation Editing
• Dissertation Coaching
• Free Consultation

Choosing a Thesis Advisor: A Complete Guide

One of the most important choices that you will make about your dissertation or thesis happens before you write a single word. Choosing a thesis advisor or dissertation advisor (often referred to as a dissertation chair) will have a significant impact on your entire dissertation writing experience, and for many years to come. For many doctoral students, their thesis advisor is their single greatest influence in graduate school. 

Selecting a thesis advisor is a big decision with far-reaching implications. The stakes are very high, and it is imperative to choose your thesis advisor wisely. There are many factors to consider when choosing a thesis advisor, from expertise to personality, and it pays to think carefully and weigh your options before approaching a faculty member to chair your dissertation committee . While there are subtle differences between a dissertation chair and a thesis advisor, we’ll focus on the commonalities in this article.

These are commonly asked questions about selecting a thesis advisor: 

• What does a thesis advisor do? 
• How should I choose my thesis advisor?
• What makes a faculty member a good thesis advisor? 
• What if it doesn’t work out with my thesis advisor? 

Thesis Advisor Responsibilities

While writing a dissertation is a largely solitary pursuit, a good thesis advisor will be with you every step of the way. While you are very much in the driver’s seat, it is your thesis advisor’s job to keep you off the guardrails. And deploy the airbag, if necessary. There are a few purposes that your thesis advisor will serve during your time together. 

Guidance . While the dissertation process is new to you, your thesis advisor will know it very well. She will help you navigate the obstacles and pitfalls that have derailed many projects–department politics, university regulations, funding, research opportunities, etc. Your thesis advisor will also serve as a sounding board as you distill the nebulous concept of your research project into a fully-formed idea that you can move forward with. 

Organization . A good thesis advisor will run a tight ship and keep your dissertation project moving like clockwork. As a researcher, it’s very easy to get lost in the minutiae of the literature, and it’s not difficult to find yourself trapped down a rabbit hole of scholarship. Regular milestones set by your thesis advisor are a great way to stay on track and maintain forward momentum. 

Mentorship. While an effective thesis advisor will ensure that you see your project to fruition, a great one will be with you for decades. Though I graduated with my Ph.D. in 2012 and I’m now an associate professor myself, my thesis advisor remains a guiding light in my career. Your thesis advisor can be a cornerstone of your professional network. 

Choosing a Thesis Advisor