thesis supervisor work

How to Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You

For most doctoral students, it takes a lot of determination and hard work to defend their thesis successfully. During a thesis defense, researchers are expected to present their research to a panel of experts. These individuals are well-versed in the subject being discussed and may ask probing questions that require in-depth knowledge and expertise to answer. This is where an experienced supervisor becomes invaluable. It is widely acknowledged that having a capable supervisor is half the battle won in a student’s doctoral journey.  

Doctoral students must never underestimate the importance of a good supervisor. It is also essential to keep in mind that while it is good to work under a supervisor who supports you and instills a great deal of confidence at critical junctures in your doctoral journey, it is equally essential for the students to drive the process. For thesis supervision to have a positive impact, students must keep an open mind and maintain a reciprocal approach by building on the inputs and ideas suggested by their supervisor.  

In this article, we will talk about how to make your thesis supervision work for you and how the partnership with your supervisor should inspire you to rise above any challenges that you may face while pursuing your PhD.  

How to make the best of thesis supervision

As a research student, you should be aware of what to expect from your supervisors and how best you can make use of their feedback to get the best results for your work. The following guidelines will be helpful in this regard. 

You are the driver, and the thesis is your responsibility

It is essential to internalize the fact that your thesis is ultimately your responsibility. The supervisor is not going to do the work for you, and you should not be waiting for them to give you orders on what to do. The supervisor’s responsibility is to provide you with the necessary guidance and advice on various aspects of your thesis work and at all stages of your thesis progression. To this end, you need to ensure that you submit your work periodically so that supervisors can respond to your work in a timely manner. Submission of written work is, therefore, critical. Make sure that you highlight any specific aspects or areas in your work for which you may need your supervisor’s guidance.  

Plan regular meetings with your supervisor

Having regular thesis supervision sessions is critical, and a mutually convenient time should be fixed for these sessions. Such dedicated time should be utilized as an excellent opportunity for the students to understand and discuss their supervisor’s feedback, identify the strengths and limitations of the submitted work, and decide on the following steps to be taken. Having such regular sessions should be counted as a learning process. It also enables the supervisor to understand the progression of your work. In cases where the students need to consult their supervisor in between sessions, they should be able to plan it out with the supervisor during specified office hours. 

Taking a positive and proactive approach

Students must understand that at various stages of thesis supervision, they can receive both praise and constructive criticism as feedback. A positive and proactive approach needs to be developed in handling both situations, keeping in mind that these are ultimately for improving your work. At the PhD level, you are expected to learn to be more independent in the course of your work. There may also be situations where you receive contradictory feedback from two supervisors. This is normal since supervisors have different research interests and experiences, and research arguments can be put forward in various ways. Here, the best option is to have an open discussion with the supervisory team and agree on the steps ahead. 

Being professional in discharging your duties

Being respectful to each other is critical in a supervisor-supervisee relationship. As mentioned earlier, feedback from supervisors should be approached constructively. Aim to view your supervisors as experts from whom you can further your knowledge. However, in genuine cases where there is hardly any functional relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee, students should contact their department focal points. Examples of dysfunctional relations include:

• Failure to provide any feedback.
• Having meetings with the doctoral student.
• Being disrespectful to students.
• Offering irrelevant, poor-quality feedback.

Each institution will have its own procedures to deal with such cases, and it is essential to contact the concerned persons to address the same. 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.   

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks, submission readiness and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month !    

Related Reads:

8 most effective ways to increase motivation for thesis writing .

• 6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level
• Scientific Writing Style Guides Explained
• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (with Examples)

How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively

You may also like, how to cite in apa format (7th edition):..., academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software....

• Thesis Action Plan New
• Academic Project Planner

Literature Navigator

Thesis dialogue blueprint, writing wizard's template, research proposal compass.

• Why students love us
• Rebels Blog
• Why we are different
• All Products
• Coming Soon

The Graduate Student's Roadmap: Choosing the Ideal Thesis Supervisor

Embarking on a graduate thesis can be a daunting task, filled with uncertainties and the potential for anxiety. The key to a successful thesis experience often lies in choosing the right thesis supervisor. A supervisor plays a pivotal role in guiding students through the complex process, offering expertise, support, and valuable feedback. This article provides a roadmap for graduate students to navigate the search for an ideal thesis supervisor, ensuring a good match and fostering a productive relationship that can make the thesis journey less intimidating and more rewarding.

Key Takeaways

• Evaluate potential supervisors based on their qualifications, expertise, and compatibility with your research interests to ensure a fruitful mentorship.
• Understand the supervisory styles and expectations to align your working habits and goals, and seek student feedback to gauge the supervisor's effectiveness.
• Approach your chosen supervisor with a clear and professional proposal, set mutual expectations from the start, and employ strategies for effective communication and conflict resolution.

Navigating the Search for a Thesis Supervisor

Assessing potential supervisors: qualifications and expertise.

When embarking on your thesis journey, the first step is to identify potential supervisors who have the qualifications and expertise relevant to your research interests. Begin by reviewing their academic credentials , publications, and research projects to gauge their standing in the field. It's essential to ensure that their expertise aligns with your thesis topic, as this will be crucial for providing you with the guidance and insight you need.

Consider creating a list of potential supervisors and evaluate each based on their academic achievements and contributions to the field. Here's an example of how you might structure your list:

• Dr. Jane Smith: Expert in renewable energy systems, 15+ years of research experience, multiple awards for innovation.
• Prof. John Doe: Renowned for work in cognitive neuroscience, author of a seminal textbook, leads a well-funded research lab.
• Dr. Emily White: Specializes in social psychology, known for groundbreaking studies on behavior, collaborator on international projects.

Remember, a supervisor's reputation and network within the academic community can also play a significant role in opening doors for your future career. Therefore, it's worth considering the broader impact of their work and how it may benefit your own academic and professional development.

Compatibility and Communication: Ensuring a Good Match

When embarking on your graduate journey, the importance of choosing a supervisor whose interests align with yours cannot be overstated. Compatibility with your thesis supervisor is crucial for a fruitful academic relationship. It's essential to consider not only their expertise but also their willingness to communicate effectively and support your research aspirations.

To ensure a good match, consider the following points:

• Assess the supervisor's communication style and availability.
• Determine their approach to supervision; some may be more hands-on, especially at the early stages of your PhD.
• Explore how they facilitate planning and time management for thesis work.
• Seek feedback from current or former students to gauge satisfaction levels.

Remember, a supervisor who offers a structured plan, like the [ Thesis Dialogue Blueprint ](#), can help you prepare for meetings with confidence. Tools for thesis writing, such as worksheets and templates, can also be indicative of a supervisor's commitment to student and professor satisfaction . Ultimately, the goal is to establish a relationship that fosters academic growth and meets mutual expectations.

Evaluating Supervisory Styles and Student Feedback

When you're on the brink of selecting a thesis supervisor, it's crucial to consider not just their academic credentials, but also their supervisory style and the experiences of their past students. A model for the supervisor-doctoral student relationship can be instrumental in understanding the dynamics you might expect. This model, as highlighted in the literature, provides insights into the interpersonal style of potential supervisors and how it may mesh with your expectations for guidance and feedback.

To gain a comprehensive view, seek out qualitative frameworks that analyze feedback within PhD supervision. Such frameworks synthesize rich qualitative data and can inform you about the feedback practices that characterize a supervisor's approach. Remember, the quality of feedback is pivotal to your growth as a researcher.

Lastly, consider the tools and resources that a supervisor might recommend or provide. Websites and platforms that offer tools for thesis writing underscore the importance of a master thesis in graduate programs. They emphasize independent research and the supervisor's role in facilitating this. By evaluating these aspects, you can make an informed decision that aligns with your academic goals and personal working style.

Understanding the Supervisor's Expectations and Commitment

When you embark on your graduate journey, understanding your supervisor's expectations and commitment level is crucial. Clear communication about these expectations will lay the foundation for a successful supervisory relationship. Discuss the specific requirements of your graduate program and align them with your thesis objectives. This discussion should include program-specific expectations and respective timelines, ensuring that both you and your supervisor are on the same page from the outset.

Consider creating a Thesis Dialogue Blueprint, which can serve as a structured plan for your interactions. This blueprint should detail the frequency of meetings, feedback mechanisms, and milestones. Here's an example of what such a blueprint might include:

• Frequency of meetings: Weekly/Bi-weekly/Monthly
• Feedback turnaround time: 5 working days
• Milestone 1: Literature review completion
• Milestone 2: Data collection
• Milestone 3: First draft submission

Remember, a confident supervisor will engage in open discussions about candidature time and progress to completion. It's also important to recognize that supervisor-student fit is crucial to your satisfaction with the learning experience and can influence retention or attrition. By managing feedback effectively and planning meetings strategically, you can navigate challenges and ensure a successful PhD journey.

Finalizing Your Choice and Fostering a Productive Relationship

Making the initial approach: tips and best practices.

Once you've identified a potential thesis supervisor, the initial approach is a critical step. Begin by conducting thorough research on their academic background and current research interests. Visit their webpage, review their publications , and understand their research trajectory. This will not only prepare you for a meaningful conversation but also show your genuine interest in their work.

When crafting your initial contact email , be concise and articulate your research interests clearly. Highlight how your interests align with theirs and mention any relevant experience or skills you possess. Here's a simple structure to follow:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce yourself and your academic background.
• Research Interests: Clearly state your research interests and how they align with the supervisor's work.
• Experience: Mention any relevant experience or skills that make you a suitable candidate.
• Inquiry: Politely inquire about the possibility of them supervising your thesis.
• Closing: Thank them for their time and express your willingness to discuss further.

Remember, first impressions matter. Your initial approach should reflect your professionalism and commitment to your research. Be prepared to discuss your ideas in more depth if the supervisor shows interest. And most importantly, be respectful of their time; academics often have busy schedules, so a well-thought-out and respectful inquiry is more likely to receive a positive response.

Setting Clear Goals and Expectations from the Start

As you embark on your thesis journey, it is crucial to establish a clear roadmap from the outset. Set clear goals and expectations with your supervisor to ensure that both parties have a mutual understanding of the thesis objectives, timelines, and milestones. This clarity will serve as a foundation for a structured and focused research process.

Begin by discussing the scope of your research with your supervisor. Define the boundaries of your study and identify the key questions you aim to answer. It's important to be realistic about what can be achieved within the time and resources available. Use the following list to guide your initial goal-setting conversation:

• Outline the main objectives of your thesis
• Agree on a timeline with deadlines for each stage of the research
• Determine the frequency and format of supervisory meetings
• Establish criteria for evaluating progress
• Discuss any potential obstacles and strategies for overcoming them

By taking these steps, you will build a solid framework for your research and maintain a balance between your academic pursuits and personal well-being. Remember, setting boundaries and practicing self-discipline are essential for a successful thesis experience.

Strategies for Ongoing Communication and Feedback

Establishing a rhythm of regular and structured communication with your thesis supervisor is crucial for the success of your research journey. Schedule regular meetings to discuss your progress, challenges, and any concerns you may have. These meetings should be seen as an opportunity to receive constructive feedback and to ensure that your research is on track.

Effective communication goes beyond scheduled meetings. It's important to be proactive in seeking feedback and to be open to implementing it. Here's a list of strategies to enhance communication:

• Utilize various communication channels, such as email, video calls, or in-person meetings, to maintain a consistent dialogue.
• Prepare for each meeting with a clear agenda and specific questions to maximize the value of the time spent.
• Be receptive to feedback and critically assess the results you obtain, ensuring alignment with the study objectives.
• Document the feedback received and the outcomes of discussions to track your progress and any agreed-upon changes.

Remember, a productive supervisory relationship is a two-way street. Your supervisor's insights are invaluable, but your own reflections and self-assessment are equally important. Embrace the process of self-reflection, and be prepared to communicate complex information effectively.

Dealing with Challenges and Navigating Conflicts

When you encounter challenges or conflicts with your thesis supervisor, it's essential to address them proactively. Your first step is to talk it out , as direct communication can often resolve misunderstandings and align expectations. If the issue persists, consider the following steps:

• Reflect on the nature of the conflict and your own role in it.
• Prepare for the discussion by outlining your concerns and desired outcomes.
• Schedule a meeting with your supervisor to discuss the issues calmly and professionally.

Remember, the goal is to foster a collaborative environment where both parties feel heard and respected. If conflicts continue to impede your research, it may be necessary to seek advice from a departmental advisor or mediator. They can offer neutral perspectives and suggest strategies for resolution. Ultimately, maintaining a professional demeanor and focusing on your Thesis Action Plan will guide you through these challenges.

Making the right choice for your thesis can be a game-changer in your academic journey. At Research Rebels, we understand the importance of not only choosing wisely but also maintaining a productive relationship with your thesis. That's why we've developed a comprehensive Thesis Action Plan to guide you through every step of the process. Don't let anxiety and sleepless nights dictate your student life. Take control and visit our website to learn more about how we can help you transform your thesis experience. Embrace the clarity and confidence our guides and worksheets provide, and start your journey to academic success today!

In conclusion, the journey to selecting the ideal thesis supervisor is a critical step in a graduate student's academic path. It requires careful consideration of the supervisor's expertise, communication style, and mentorship approach, as well as alignment with the student's research interests and career aspirations. By engaging in structured discussions, utilizing resources like the Thesis Action Plan, and seeking guidance from platforms like Research Rebels, students can navigate this process with greater confidence and clarity. Ultimately, a well-chosen thesis supervisor not only enriches the research experience but also fosters professional growth and paves the way for future academic and career successes.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i assess a potential thesis supervisor's qualifications and expertise.

Review their academic profile, including publications, research interests, and previous supervisory experience. Attend their lectures or seminars to gauge their expertise and reach out to current or former students for feedback.

What should I consider when evaluating a supervisor's communication style?

Consider whether their communication style is clear and responsive. Assess their availability for meetings and willingness to provide timely feedback. It's important that you feel comfortable discussing your ideas and concerns with them.

How can I approach a potential thesis supervisor and make a good impression?

Prepare a concise summary of your research interests and how they align with the supervisor's work. Be professional in your communication and show your enthusiasm for the subject. It's also beneficial to demonstrate your understanding of their research.

Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: A Fun and Informative Guide

Unlocking the Power of Data: A Review of 'Essentials of Modern Business Statistics with Microsoft Excel'

Discovering Statistics Using SAS: A Comprehensive Review

How to Deal with a Total Lack of Motivation, Stress, and Anxiety When Finishing Your Master's Thesis

Mastering the First Step: How to Start Your Thesis with Confidence

Thesis Revision Made Simple: Techniques for Perfecting Your Academic Work

Thesis Action Plan

Integrating Calm into Your Study Routine: The Power of Mindfulness in Education

How to determine the perfect research proposal length.

• Blog Articles
• Affiliate Program
• Terms and Conditions
• Payment and Shipping Terms
• Privacy Policy
• Return Policy

© 2024 Research Rebels, All rights reserved.

Your cart is currently empty.

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

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

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

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

9968 Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

Participants

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

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

Data collection

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

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

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

Ethical considerations

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

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

The process of expertise attainment in research supervisor model

Theme 1: engagement

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

Curious observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation with reality

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

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

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

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

Theme 2: supervision climate

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

Challenging shortcomings

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

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

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

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

Role ambiguity

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

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

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

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

Various performance

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

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

In one of the Ph.D. student’s words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the students put it this way:

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

Theme 3: maturation

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

Reflection in action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the faculty members also quoted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection on action

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

In this regard, one of the students said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The core variable: interactive accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and limitations of the study

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

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

Implications of the study

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Leila Bazrafkan & Mitra Amini

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

Alireza Yousefy & Nikoo Yamani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Authors’ information

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

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

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

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikoo Yamani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

Consent for publication

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

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2019

Accepted : 29 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

The Educationalist

Thesis Supervision 101

The educationalist. by alexandra mihai.

Welcome to a new issue of “The Educationalist”! You probably noticed quite a long gap since the last issue- as some of you may know, in the past two weeks I moved to the US to start my Fulbright Schuman Scholarship at Yale University. I am very excited to be working at the Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning and I’m looking forward to sharing with you what I learn and what inspires me here in the next six months. In the meantime, this week I want to address a topic that I myself had to plunge into this year: thesis supervision . Luckily, I benefitted a lot from the valuable advice of my colleague, Therese Grohnert and that is why I asked her to share her tips and resources here, which she kindly accepted. We hope you find them useful and we look forward to your comments, experiences and ideas. Happy reading and have a nice week!

If you are currently involved in a taught Master’s programme, then you are most likely a Master thesis supervisor, guiding students in completing an extended research project from planning to finished thesis or dissertation. When you think back to how you got started in this role, did you receive formal support for developing your dissertation skills, did you have access to best practices and advice outside of your own network? In fact, many thesis supervisors receive little to no guidance when getting started , having to rely on their own experiences as a student, or their colleagues’ experiences. This can create quite some uncertainty, when thesis supervision is a wonderful opportunity to work closely with students individually or in small groups, to get students excited about research, and to build their research and project management skills.

In my role as a faculty developer, I often get asked for advice on getting started as a beginning supervisor, on maintaining students’ motivation throughout the process, and on using your limited supervision time effectively. So, I went to work and collected best practices and advice for my colleagues. Let’s walk through the supervision process step by step, from preparing your first supervision to assessing a master’s thesis.

Step 0: Preparing

Before you are assigned your first thesis students, you can already take steps to set yourself and your student up for success:

Check the expectations of the programme regarding the timeline, the final thesis, and what you as a supervisor are expected to do, check the code of practice or contact your thesis coordinator for this information;

Set up ground rules : make explicit how you want to work together with your student, think of how and when you want to be contacted, when and how often you will provide the student with feedback, when you expect the student to speak up and ask for help, etc. More experienced colleagues can share what is common in the programme;

If you are new at your current institution, find out what the support network is like for students , including academic advising, workshops, library support etc. so you can direct the student when needed, and can share the load.

Depending on your programme, you may already formulate tentative topics and you might consider whether you will supervise students individually or in small groups; this will depend on the size of the programme and the autonomy given to students when it comes to choosing a topic.

Step 1: The First Meeting

Once you have the first meeting scheduled with your thesis student, use the following agenda points to prepare with motivation, safety, and effectiveness of the process in mind:

Make time to get to know each other , connect over common interests, background, or goals to build trust and a comfortable atmosphere; encourage the student to speak up when needed and to let you know how they are doing;

Ask your student about their learning goals (not their grade goals!): which skill would they like to learn through the thesis, what are their plans after graduation, and how can the thesis trajectory help them prepare?

Ask the student to share why they are interested in their topic , what they hope to find out and who would benefit from the insights of their thesis before helping them formulate two or three concrete steps to get started.

In this first meeting, be sure to discuss your ground rules and to ask the student how they like to collaborate so you can make specific agreements and manage expectations on all sides.

Step 2: Managing the Process

Throughout the supervision process, it is important that the student takes responsibility for their own their process, and that you support the student in managing the thesis process. My colleagues have shared the following tips for fostering student independence and project management skills :

Ask your student to send in a document or questions in time, to prepare an agenda, and to start each meeting with a short recap of their current project status;

Check in to reflect on the student’s skill development towards their learning goals, as well as any struggles that the student cannot overcome by themselves yet;

At the end of each meeting, ask your student to formulate specific next steps for their work an a clear guidance for when to contact you again for the next meeting (forgetful students can also be encouraged to send you an email with these steps in writing).

In case you are supervising many students, you can create a tracker with key milestones and room for notes for a quick overview, and you can pair up students with a similar topic, method or challenge so they can support each other and you can provide support for these students as a group.

Step 3: Providing Feedback

When and how you provide feedback to your student will depend on the programme guidelines as well as on what your fellow supervisors are offering to their students. In some programmes, students will receive feedback at least once on each chapter of their thesis, while in others, supervisors will focus on a complete draft only. In either case, there are some ways in which you can use your time and energy in an efficient and effective way:

Ask students to submit feedback questions along with their work: which sections did students struggle with, where are they unsure of their work, which element are they not yet happy with and why? This will allow you to focus on these issues first, adding 2-3 additional points when needed to challenge but not overwhelm the student and connect to their current level of learning;

Consider the level of feedback needed : when sections are messy and ineffective, avoid editing your student’s work, but offer to create an outline together before the student reorganises their own work; if paragraphs are not well-organised, edit one paragraph together and ask the student to apply your feedback to the remainder of the section;

Don’t forget to let the student know what they are already doing well and where to apply these good points in future sections – make these comments as specific as you can.

Finally, whether we are experienced supervisors or not, every student is different and may benefit from different ways of providing feedback. Ask you student what works for them and plan together how you will give and how they will process feedback . This is an essential learning skill they will benefit from regardless of their plans after graduation.

Step 4: Assessment

Let’s assume everything has gone well and your student is getting ready to submit their thesis. At some universities, students complete a defense (or viva) in which they discuss their thesis with the supervisor and maybe an independent reader. This part can be daunting for a beginning supervisor, but here are some tips to get started:

Check whether there are any rubrics or assessment criteria available for your programme, who is required to assess a thesis, where to send the final grade, and what happens if the student fails;

If possible, ask experienced colleagues to share a good, an average, and an insufficient thesis with you, along with their assessment and feedback for the student; these documents can help you benchmark your own grading;

Think how you will communicate your grade and feedback to the student , in writing or during a defense; keep the student’s learning goals in mind and make explicit how the student can continue their learning journey based on what they have achieved throughout the thesis trajectory.

If you are unsure, ask a colleague to provide a second opinion and their best practices for the defense/viva and/or providing written feedback. As with any skill, becoming a good thesis supervisor takes experience, reflection, and feedback . I am curious to hear your experiences and best practices, and am happy to discuss our faculty development activities on thesis supervision with anyone interested – looking forward to connecting with you!

Further resources

“Understanding the up, back, and forward-component in master's thesis supervision with adaptivity” , by Renske A.M. de Kleijn, Larike H. Bronkhorst, Paulien C. Meijer, Albert Pilot & Mieke Brekelmans- a qualitative study for framing and fostering goals in the supervision process;

The UM Library Thesis Bookshelf - helpful resources for supervisors and students on academic writing and literature reviews;

Tips and resources for supervising remotely - University of Edinburg’s best practices for remote supervision;

Master thesis supervision: resources on preparing, managing and assessing theses - resources from our own SBE Learning Academy, including videos for supervisors and resources that can be shared with students;

The LDO Troubleshooting Guide to Academic Writing - an interactive tool we use in our programme that helps students process feedback on the thesis or to deal with various writing struggles;

A Practical Guide to Projects and Dissertations - an online course developed by the Centre for Distance Education, University of London, that has both resources dedicated to students and an Instructor Tool Kit.

Dr. Therese Grohnert is an educational developer, educator, and assistant professor at Maastricht University’s School of Business and Economics in The Netherlands. She supports staff in effectively supervising master theses, managing group dynamics in a PBL context and designing courses with constructive alignment and student motivation in mind. She is also studying how professionals learn and develop in the workplace for better judgments and decision-making. Find her on Twitter: @grohnerttherese .

Ready for more?

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

Dr. Heidi Toivonen

Psychologist

How to Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You

1. it’s your thesis and nobody else’s.

This sounds like a self-evident thing, right? Surprisingly often, it is not. So what does it mean in terms of how to make your thesis supervision work for you to say that it is your thesis and not your supervisor’s? It means of course that you do all the required parts of the thesis from literature review to the data analysis and the interpretation of the results. But it also means something more than that. It means taking intellectual responsibility of your thesis. Most of the time, your supervisor (at least if it’s me), will give you suggestions, not orders. It’s up to you to decide how you implement them.

If I ask you, for example, to write something in a clearer way, you are the one who has to figure out how to make this happen in actual sentences that you type on your keyboard. If I leave comment in the margins of your thesis asking for you to build a clearer bridge between two paragraphs and you respond to it by writing a comment like “But how?”, the answer to the question is that I won’t tell you. That’s why I’m your supervisor, not your co-author. Your job in writing a thesis is to figure out some things out all by yourself. You need to try and build that clearer bridge, not ask your supervisor to do it for you. If you are still stuck with building this metaphorical bridge after trying, then ask your supervisor. Perhaps they can help you think of some ways to make it happen.

You will make the most out of your thesis supervision and -writing as well as ensure a functioning working relationship with your supervisor, if you from the beginning, at every step of the process, remember that it is your thesis, not theirs. That being said, if you are a BSc or a MSc thesis writer, I do recommend that you always take into account the concrete and specific suggestions of your supervisor, whether they are about doing some part of your analysis differently or reading a specific article. Doing a PhD is a bit different and might occasionally require you to be more independent and even deviate from the suggestions of your supervisor. Sometimes this turns out to be a mistake, sometimes not.

However, I’m by no means arguing that supervisors know everything or that their advice is always flawless. The advice you get from me as a supervisor is not a word of Divine truth but rather a well-informed opinion on something. Doing research is a dynamic and complex process, not a school exercise where things are right or wrong and advance in a linear manner. I’m going to tell you more about that in the next chapter.

2. Have a Flexible Mindset and Tolerance for Dynamic Processes

Research is never a linear and simple process. Doing a thesis is not like taking a multiple choice exam, where an answer is either correct or not. In all likelihood, writing your BSc or MSc thesis is your first experience of doing something that resembles real world research. Welcome to the world of dynamic and complex processes!

I supervise only qualitative theses, that is, works that analyze textual data. My own research has been mainly qualitative, because I have always been most interested in how people talk about things and how they build different phenomena in their verbal interactions. In other words, for me, the most meaningful data is verbal and stems from for example therapy conversations, interviews, or reading groups. Thus, I’m very happy to be acting as a first supervisor in different kinds of qualitative thesis projects. If you want to learn more about qualitative research, you can look for example here .

I might venture to say that the world of qualitative research is even more dynamic than that of quantitative. This means many things. It means that you might decide your actual research question and analytical method only after having already read through all of your transcribed interviews. It means that you might have started happily conducting a Discourse Analysis on transcribed sessions of reading group meetings, while you realize that this method is too detailed and takes you theoretically to a direction where you don’t want to go. Then you switch to Thematic Analysis and do everything again from the start. You will probably write your method section only after you have actually finalized your results, because the back-and-forth, iterative movement between data, analysis, and literature causes the research process to be complex. You cannot articulate what and how you did until you are ready with the results. I could give you more examples, but I think you get the point. So what does all this mean in terms of your thesis supervision?

It means that you will get something that students call “conflicting feedback”. Sometimes, my students complain that my feedback changes from session to session and conflicts with what the second supervisor says. You know what, I would be worried if that was not the case! If the supervisor does not write different and even conflicting comments in the margins of your different thesis versions and if the feedback does not change at all from session to session, it might be because of two things. Either the supervisor is not really reading your thesis and/or has decided only to feedback a certain section once and no more. The other option is that you are stuck with your process and the thesis is not going through the journey it should. There is simply not enough there to give conflicting comments about!

A thesis is a complex piece of work. If you change something in your conclusions and how you discuss them, it probably means something needs to be changed in the introduction. If you change how to present your results, you might have to tinker with something in the method section. From this it often follows that at one point your supervisor will tell you to do X and in the next phase they change their mind and tell you to do Y. In many cases, you will get feedback about your introduction before you have your results figured out. It’s obvious that the introduction needs to be edited once you have the results down. Changing even a small section of your thesis might cause a domino effect requiring further changes made elsewhere in the work. In this kind of scenario, a good supervisor changes the feedback they gave earlier and tells you something different. This might feel like it’s contradictory, but it might still make sense in the bigger picture when you think about it.

In addition, remember that your supervisor is not there reading your thesis over your shoulder all the time. The versions the supervisor sees might be months apart from each other. When the student says “But you said something completely different last time!”, the answer is “Yes I did, but your thesis wasn’t the same then.”

In the world of research, contradictory feedback is the usual feedback you get. This is because normally, you will have several different people looking at your paper and sharing their thoughts of it. Let’s look at how things work outside thesis writing, in the world of peer-reviewed research papers. You will have two experts reviewing your paper. They will not know whose paper they are reading and you will never get to know who these reviewers are. In the usual case, the Reviewer 1 loves something and the Reviewer 2 hates it. The Reviewer 1 tells you to not include certain kind of literature in your discussion and the Reviewer 2 will tell you put more of it there. You get the point? It’s up to the researcher to decide which advice to apply and how, and whether it is possible to find a middle ground that meets the wishes of both reviewers.

In the same way, if you have two supervisors, you are actually lucky if they give you some contradicting feedback. That means you have more than one possible perspective to think about and more than one road to walk! Often, your 1st and 2nd supervisor might have different research interests in their own work and have experience from completely different kinds of analytical methods. They are also just two different human beings. In addition, since a thesis is not a multiple choice exam where answers are either correct or not, your supervisors are more than likely to say different things about your thesis. In the case of your supervisor giving mutually exclusive and completely conflicting advice, the obvious next step is to have an open and transparent conversation about what is the best course of action. Chances are that you will find a good solution as to what to do next by just negotiating, and that’s all that matters in the end.

What I wish to say is that the core in how to make your thesis supervision work for you is having a flexible mindset and being ready for things changing along the journey. Don’t expect the supervision and the feedback you get to be entirely predictable and black-and-white. You are not doing basic calculus where the supervisor can say “right” or “wrong”. Allow the journey to happen with some unexpected turns along the way.

3. Always Maintain Your Professional Attitude

Writing a thesis is not always easy and fun. There will be days of frustration, anger, even despair. In fact, if you don’t at any point feel like you are lost and don’t understand what you are doing, then you are probably not venturing much outside of your comfort zone. As a supervisor, I always try my best to be understanding and compassionate about the personal struggles of the students. Being kind and understanding is also a professional skill and very important in academia that can be quite cold and harsh sometimes. It’s not always easy to stay polite, calm, and nice when to-do’s keep piling up and the stress levels are peaking, but I will always make an effort to stay that way. I hope you will, too.

A professional attitude means that you behave like a polite, mature human being. You take responsibility, respect other people’s time and effort, do what you promise when you promise. Supervisors need to respect their students and students need to respect their supervisors. Without a respectful and professional attitude, no good theses will be written.

In practice, what I mean with maintaining a professional attitude is that you don’t accuse your supervisor for things such as not making sure you can get a high degree or a green light (the official ok to defend your thesis at a colloquium). Sometimes I have heard students accuse their first supervisor for not telling them earlier that they will not be getting a green light for their thesis. This accusation does not make any sense. A green light decision is, at my current university, reached independently by two supervisors. It is given for the version of the thesis the student hands in for their last supervision meeting before “colloquium”, the event where they present their thesis and answer questions about it. The student cannot be told that they are or are not going to get a green light before they actually hand in the last draft of their thesis, the green light version.

In a similar vein, your supervisor cannot promise you a certain grade. They can probably tell you what kind of a grade you would approximately be getting with a certain version of the thesis. However, thesis drafts change all the time. I have seen cases where a relatively decent thesis becomes worse between two meetings, because the student misunderstands crucial feedback. I have also seen how a relatively decent thesis becomes mind-blowingly good in just a couple of weeks. Your supervisor might be a fantastic scholar, but they are not a fortune teller. Hence, don’t ask for a certain grade and don’t assume anything. If you are disappointed about a grade, ask for clarifications for why it was given. Just don’t assume that your supervisor is grading you low because they are mean and don’t care about you.

Examples of non-professional behavior are more than complaining about your grade. Other things I would avoid are sending out countless emails to the supervisor to ask questions to which you need to find an answer yourself. Another thing is not taking into account the feedback your supervisor is giving. I have heard about (but not personally supervised) students who think that they are on top of the academic world and their supervisor is stuck in the Middle Ages. Let me inform you that if you are doing an MSc thesis, then your supervisor has a PhD. Having a PhD in most cases nowadays means having published at least two peer-reviewed scientific articles at the time of the PhD thesis defense. A BSc or a MSc thesis is not a peer-reviewed scientific article.

Try to see your supervisor as an expert of whose knowledge you can benefit in your thesis rather than as someone you need to compete with or challenge. In many cases, when a student thinks they are very smart in challenging their professor, it is actually quite an embarrassing event to be witnessing. Humbleness is a very useful quality in academia in general. It means you know where your limits are and are willing to expand them by learning from others who have already walked further on their journey.

What If There Is No Way to Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You?

It’s time to acknowledge that not all supervisor-student -relationships are fruitful and functional. What does it mean to be professional in case things are just not working out between you and your supervisor? Well, let’s first think about what it means that things are not working. Is your supervisor skipping meetings that you know you are entitled to have? Are you not getting any feedback at all? Is your supervisor acting in a disrespectful way towards you? After trying to discuss the issue with your supervisor directly, do not hesitate to contact other people at your department.

Different universities and departments have different protocols on these things. If the university’s website doesn’t help you to figure out who to talk to, try the study advisor, your second supervisor, or the thesis coordinator. Ask someone -anyone!- what to do.

You don’t need to tolerate substandard supervision. I myself asked to have my supervisor changed during my Master’s, because he would never reply my emails, would not organize the meetings I knew I had a right to, and acted disrespectfully. The new supervisor was great and I ended up doing a decent job. End of story.

Sometimes professional behavior entails asking difficult questions and confronting someone directly about how they do their job. Just be aware that supervision is a two-line highway. I will myself not hesitate to tell a student if they are out of line when example complaining about a no green light decision or are sending me too many emails with questions that they could try asking Google first.

Last Words on How To Make Your Thesis Supervision Work for You

I cannot speak for all supervisors in the world, but as a supervisor, I really hope that you will always tell me if you are stuck, lost, confused, or anything like that with your thesis. Tell me if you didn’t understand some feedback or if you need extra help in finding relevant literature. One of the most important rules of acting professionally is that you are honest, open, and ask for what you need. If I don’t know where my student is mentally or academically, I cannot guide them to the best of my capacity.

Lastly, I want to say that I hope writing a good thesis is important to you. If you are not interested or motivated about your thesis, the supervisor should know. Perhaps there is something to be done to make the process more inspiring.

Being a thesis supervisor is a very important job for me, and I take pride in doing it extremely well. I care about the students and their theses (to see how another professor from a different discipline also cares about their supervisees by writing out some rules of engagement, check here ). That’s why you are always welcome to give me feedback, too. That is the only way to keep growing in what one is doing!

Share this:

You must log in to post a comment.

First meeting with your dissertation supervisor: What to expect

The first meeting with your dissertation supervisor can be a little intimidating, as you do not know what to expect. While every situation is unique, first meetings with a dissertation supervisor often centre around getting to know each other, establishing expectations, and creating work routines.

Why a good relationship with a dissertation supervisor matters

What is important to know is that the relationship that you establish with your supervisor can be a crucial factor in completing a successful dissertation.

A better relationship often results in better and timely completion of a dissertation. This finding is backed up by science. This study , for instance, points out that student-supervisor relationships strongly influence the quality, success or failure of completing a PhD (on time).

Commonly experienced challenges in student-supervisor relationships, on the other hand, are “different expectations, needs and ways of thinking and working” (Gill and Burnard, 2008, p. 668).

Getting to know each other during the first meeting

Many first meetings with a dissertation supervisor include a considerable amount of ‘small talk’. Thus, you can expect to engage in a casual conversation to get acquainted.

Getting to know the work environment during the first meeting

PhD students who start their dissertation are often introduced to their lab, research group or department during the first meeting.

There may also be a discussion about accessing an institutional email address or online work environment as a dissertation student. And any questions that are important to answer to kick off the dissertation process.

Establishing a meeting and communication schedule

Establishing a meeting schedule, or at least discussing how often you are planning to meet, how regularly, and within what time intervals, can reduce a lot of stress and uncertainty.

Discussing your research idea with your dissertation supervisor

While you can expect a lot of Smalltalk, planning, and organisational issues to dominate the first meeting with your dissertation supervisor, it is common to also chat about your research idea.

Based on this information, the dissertation supervisor can already point you in the right direction, suggest relevant literature, or connect you with other students or colleagues who work on similar issues.

Discussing expectations with your dissertation supervisor

Expectations differ from supervisor to supervisor. Some may just expect you to simply get used to your work environment, read a lot and explore theories that are relevant to your dissertation. Others may want to see the first results in terms of a literature review or research proposal.

If you are writing a master thesis, your timeframe will be much shorter. Thus, it is even more important to define deadlines and milestones with your dissertation supervisor as soon as possible. The first meeting lends itself to making this plan.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, how many conferences postgrads should attend, 10 things to do when you feel like your dissertation is killing you, related articles, how to write a literature review introduction (+ examples), how to write a unique thesis acknowledgement (+ faqs), sample emails to your thesis supervisor, how to deal with procrastination productively during thesis writing.

Eight tips to effectively supervise students during their Master's thesis

Jul 30, 2021 PhD

I am a fan of knowledge transfer between peers, teaching what I know to others and learning back from them. At University I frequently helped my fellow course mates with the material, so I was very interested in formally mentoring students when I started my PhD. Luckily my supervisor, who is really talented at this, agreed to let me help him with supervising some Master’s theses. In this article, also published as a Nature Career Column , I present eight lessons that I learned by watching him at work and trying on my own.

I supervised three Master’s students in the past year. One of them was quite good and independent, did not need a lot of guidance and could take care of most things on his own, while the other two required a fair amount of help from us, one of them even coming close to not graduating successfully. Dealing with the difficult situations is when I learned the most important lessons, but regardless of the ability of the students a common thread soon appeared.

But first, here’s a brief digression on how that happened. While I was writing a draft for this blog, I noticed an interesting article on Nature’s newsletter. While I was reading it, I felt its style was quite similar to what I usually aim for in this blog: use headlines to highlight the important points, and elaborate on those with a few paragraphs. I then noticed the author of that column was a PhD student, and I thought: “how comes she has an article there? Why can she do that? Can I do that?”. I quickly found how to do it , finished the draft and sent it to them, and, after eight rounds of review in the course of two months, the article was finally up! The editor was very responsive and we could iterate quickly on the manuscript, and the quality of the writing is so much better than what I had originally sent in. On the other hand, I sometimes felt the message was being warped a bit too much. After the editing process was finished I had to agree to an Embargo Period of six months during which Nature had the exclusive right of publishing the final version on their website. As those six months are now over, I am finally allowed to publish the final version here, too. Enjoy!

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Nature Career Column . The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02028-1 .

The lessons I learnt supervising master’s students for the first time

PhD student Emilio Dorigatti supported three junior colleagues during their degrees.

I started my PhD wanting to improve not only my scientific abilities, but also ‘soft skills’ such as communication, mentoring and project management. To this end, I joined as many social academic activities as I could find, including journal clubs, seminars, teaching assistance, hackathons, presentations and collaborations.

I am a bioinformatics PhD student at the Munich School for Data Science in Germany, jointly supervised by Bernd Bischl at the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich and Benjamin Schubert at the Helmholtz Centre Munich, the German Research Center for Environmental Health. When I went to them asking to gain some experience in communication and mentoring soft skills, they suggested that I co-supervise three of Benjamin’s master’s students.

At first, I felt out of my depth, so I simply sat in on their meetings and listened. After a few months, I began offering technical advice on programming. I then started proposing new analyses and contributions. Eventually I became comfortable enough to propose a new master’s project based on part of my PhD research; Benjamin and I are now interviewing candidates.

I gained a great deal from this experience and I am grateful to both of my supervisors for supporting me, as well as to the students for staying motivated, determined and friendly throughout. Here are some of the things I learnt about how to ensure smooth collaboration and a happy outcome for all of us.

Draft a project plan

With Benjamin and Bernd, I put together a project plan for each of the master’s students. Drafting a two-page plan that ended up resembling an extended abstract for a conference forced us to consider each project in detail and helped to ensure that it was feasible for a student to carry out in their last semester of study.

If you’re a PhD student supervising others, sit down with your own supervisor and agree on your respective responsibilities as part of the project plan. At first, you might want your supervisor to follow you closely to help keep the project on the right path, but as you gain more experience and trust, you might request more autonomy and independence.

Use the project plan to advertise the position and find a suitable student: share it online on the group’s website or on Twitter, as well as on the job board at your department. Advertise it to your students if you are teaching a related topic, and sit back and wait for applicants.

We structured the plans to include a general introduction to the research subject as well as a few key publications. We described the gap in the literature that the project aimed to close, with the proposed methodology and a breakdown of four or five tasks to be achieved during the project. My supervisors and I also agreed on and included specific qualifications that candidates should have, and formalities such as contact information, starting dates and whether a publication was expected at the end.

Benjamin and I decided to propose publishable projects, sometimes as part of a larger paper. We always list the student as one of the authors.

Meet your student regularly

I found that I met with most students for less than an hour per week, but some might require more attention. Most of the time, Benjamin joined the meeting, too. We started with the students summarizing what they had done the previous week and any issues they had encountered. We then had a discussion and brainstorming session, and agreed on possible next steps. I learnt that I do not need to solve all the student’s problems (it is their thesis, after all). Instead, Benjamin and I tried to focus on suggesting a couple of things they could try out. At the end of the meeting, we made sure it was clear what was expected for the next week.

We used the first few weeks to get the students up to speed with the topic, encouraging them to read publications listed in the plan, and a few others, to familiarize themselves with the specific methods that they would be working with. We also addressed administrative matters such as making sure that the students had accounts to access computational resources: networks, e-mail, Wi-Fi, private GitHub repositories and so on.

Encourage regular writing

Good writing takes time, especially for students who are not used to it, or who are writing in a foreign language. It is important to encourage them to write regularly, and to keep detailed notes of what should be included in the manuscript, to avoid missing key details later on. We tried to remind our students frequently how the manuscript should be structured, what chapters should be included, how long each should be, what writing style was expected, what template to use, and other specifics. We used our meetings to provide continuous feedback on the manuscript.

The first two to four weeks of the project are a good time to start writing the first chapters, including an introduction to the topic and the background knowledge. We suggested allocating the last three or four weeks to writing the remaining chapters — results and conclusions — ensuring that the manuscript forms a coherent whole, and preparing and rehearsing the presentation for the oral examination.

Probe for correct understanding

In our weekly meetings, or at other times when I was teaching, I quickly realized that asking ‘did you understand?’ or ‘is that OK?’ every five minutes is not enough. It can even be counterproductive, scaring away less-assertive students.

I learnt to relax a little and take a different approach: when I explained something, I encouraged the students to explain it back in their own words, providing detailed breakdowns of a certain task, anticipating possible problems, and so on.

Ultimately, this came down to probing for understanding of the science, rather than delivering a lecture or grilling an interviewee. Sometimes this approach helps when a student thinks they fully understand something but actually don’t. For example, one of our students was less experienced in programming than others, so for more difficult tasks, we broke the problem down and wrote a sketch of the computer code that they would fill in on their own during the week.

Adapt supervision to the student

Each student requires a different type of supervision, and we tried to adapt our styles to accommodate that. That could mean using Trello project-management boards or a shared Google Doc to record tasks; defining tasks in detail and walking through them carefully; or taking extra time to explain and to fill knowledge gaps. I tried to be supportive by reminding students that they could always send an e-mail if they were stuck on a problem for too long. One of the students found it very helpful to text brief updates outside of scheduled meetings, as a way to hold themselves accountable.

Sometimes, if we felt a student needed to be challenged, we proposed new tasks that were not in the original plan or encouraged them to follow their interest, be it diving into the literature or coming up with further experiments and research questions.

One student conducted a literature review and summarized the pros and cons of the state-of-the-art technology for a follow-up idea we had. That saved some time when we picked up the project after the student left; they learnt lots of interesting things; and the discussion section of the manuscript was much more interesting as a result.

When things go badly, make another plan

Not all projects can be successful, despite your (and your student’s) best efforts. So, as part of each project, my supervisors and I prepared a plan B (and C), working out which tasks were essential and which were just a nice addition. This included a simpler research question that required less work than the original. The initial plan for one of our projects was to compare a newly proposed method with the usual way of doing things, but the new method turned out to be much more difficult than anticipated, so we decided not to do the comparison, and just showed how the new method performed.

Halfway through the project is a good time to evaluate how likely it is that the thesis will be handed in on time and as originally planned. The top priority is to help the student graduate. That might entail either forgoing some of the tasks planned at the beginning, or obtaining an extension of a few months if possible.

Have a final feedback round

After the oral examinations, Benjamin and I met to decide the students’ final grades on the basis of the university’s rubric. We then met the students one last time to tell them our decision, going through each item in the rubric and explaining the motivation for the score we had given. We tried to recall relevant events from the past months to make each student feel the grading was fair.

We also remembered to ask the student for feedback on our supervision and to suggest things they thought we could do better.

Lastly, I encouraged those students to apply for open positions in our lab, and offered to write recommendation letters for them.

Thesis supervision

Find a thesis supervisor.

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

Finding a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

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

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

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

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

Appointment of a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

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

Meetings between the supervisor and the student arrow_drop_down

Preliminary meetings.

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

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

• General and specific topics to be discussed

Regular meetings

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

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

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

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

Components of a typical agenda

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

Feedback and revision arrow_drop_down

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

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

Already a student?

Types of supervision, co-supervision arrow_drop_down.

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

Cotutelle arrow_drop_down

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

Learn more about Cotutelle.

Thesis advisory committee arrow_drop_down

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

Constitution of the thesis committee

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

A thesis committee is made up of:

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

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

Role of the thesis committee

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

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

Useful information

Contracts arrow_drop_down.

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

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

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

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

Absences arrow_drop_down

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

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

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

Professionalism arrow_drop_down

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

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

Changing supervisors arrow_drop_down

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

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

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

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

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Say goodbye to unnecessary stress and get your PhD 12 months sooner with our free guide

Finish Your Thesis

Get a PhD and Finish Your Thesis 12 Months Sooner

5 Mistakes Your Thesis Supervisor May Never Forgive

June 8, 2015 by Dora Farkas, PhD 4 Comments

Your Thesis Supervisor May Not Appreciate Your Work Experience

Sam thought that graduate school would be a piece of cake. He already had six years of industry experience and he believed that he could finish his thesis sooner than his peers who came to the program right after college.

His first two years went smooth as he aced his courses, passed his qualifiers and designed a realistic project with his thesis supervisor that could be completed in 4 years. In his third year Sam decided to take his project in a different direction than what he had agreed upon with his thesis supervisor , because he thought it would be more likely to lead to a publication in a prestigious journal.

Feeling confident in himself after having been in industry for so long, Sam worked on his project solo, without giving updates to her supervisor.  Sam’s thesis supervisor was an assistant professor with limited funding, and when he realized that the project was going in a different direction he gave Sam a warning to go back to their original plan.

Sam did return to the original project, but also worked on his own idea on the side using up his supervisor’s lab supplies. Sam wanted to collect enough preliminary data to convince his supervisor that his idea was “dynamite, ” and he exchanged several emotional emails with his supervisor to get his support.

At their next meeting Sam’s supervisor gave him an ultimatum: unless he returned to their original plan and met their milestones (which were quite ambitious) he would be let go from their group.

Sam was already at the end of his 3rd year and he didn’t want to start from scratch with another professor, so he abandoned his “pet project” and returned to his original thesis.

Ironically,  Sam was the last to finish in her class (after a total of 7 years) despite his extensive industry experience, because he lost so much time on his side-project.

How to Avoid Five Mistakes That Could Cost You Your PhD

Mistake #1: openly disrespecting your supervisor.

Sam’s industry experience gave him false self-confidence, and he thought he knew things better than his thesis supervisor who was a junior faculty member. Instead of listening to his supervisor about the importance of staying with his current project,  Sam “talked down” to his supervisor during meetings, and tried to prove why his project was better.

Not only did this mistake damage their relationship, but it also delayed his supervisor’s publications and jeopardized his funding.

What you can do :

While disrespecting your supervisor will surely damage your professional relationship, disagreeing politely can actually help you gain more respect . In graduate school you are expected to learn how to become an independent researcher, and questioning the standard way of doing things is a sign that you are an original thinker.

If you disagree with your supervisor’s idea (or anyone else’s for that matter), first listen to their point of view before speaking up.  There are researchers (we all know who they are), who just want to be heard and they speak up at every meeting.  It is not necessary to force yourself to say things just for the sake of speaking up.

You are much more likely to gain other people’s respect if you hear them out completely before expressing your own thoughts, whether you agree with them or not.

How do you draw the line between disagreeing and disrespecting?

If you become emotional or defensive during a meeting , you are heading in the direction of disrespect. No matter what others say you.  can always stay, cool, calm and collected (the 3C’s) and focus on solving the problem.

Mistake #2: Keeping your supervisor in the dark about changes or progress on your work

One of the most frequent sources of miscommunication is that students do not have a good understanding of what their supervisor’s expectations are – how often should they report progress and when should they ask for help?

Some supervisors are hands-on and like to be updated frequently on your progress, while others trust you to reach out to them when you need help. There is not right style of management, you just need to make sure that your supervisor’s personality is the right fit for you.

Sam’s first mistake was that he kept his supervisor in the dark about his progress, because he did not realize that his research was crucial to his supervisor’s funding.  Had he communicated more openly about his progress, Sam could have avoided a potentially disastrous situation.

What you can do:

If you already have a supervisor and you realize that their expectations do not meet your work style (e.g. he expects updates frequently, and you would like more independence), you need to have a meeting to clarify when he would like to updated on your progress, and respect his expectations.

It is always better to err on the side of sending updates more frequently to avoid miscommunication that could delay your publications or graduation date.

Mistake #3: Working on a side project without your supervisor’s approval

While you are expected to take leadership of your thesis, if you are using your thesis supervisor’s funding and resources, they still “own” the project. In addition, they are responsible for the research in their group, and they need to make sure that it is ethical and in alignment with their funding sources.

Some supervisors, particularly the ones with plenty of funding, allow their students to pursue side projects, as long the main project is still on track. In Sam’s case, his side project took up most of his time, and it also depleted his groups’ resources.

Going off in a research direction that you think is interesting (while neglecting your actual thesis topic) is a type of “shiny object syndrome.” Perhaps you come across a paper or a new technique, and you want to try it on your own. As an independent researcher, you don’t always need to consult with your supervisor before you try something new.

The problem occurs when this new “side project” becomes a significant time and resource sink, and you fall behind on your milestones (not to mention that you will upset your supervisor too).

If you come across a novel idea that you think could become part of your thesis, run it by your advisor before spending a significant amount of time (or money) on it. Don’t assume that just because you think this research is interesting, your supervisor will, too. (Perhaps he or she has tried it in the past and chose not to pursue it for good reason.)

Mistake #4: Sending emotional emails

This is probably the most common mistake, because people (especially professors) are so tough to reach in person or by phone, that students have to resort to communication by e-mail.

When you send an emotional email, where you describe why you are angry or frustrated, it can upset your supervisor because he or she cannot sense your tone of voice. There is no way to tell how angry you really are, and you may leave out important details that could help your supervisor solve your problem.

Sam was so focused on getting his project to work that he used email as his primary source of communication with his supervisor instead of meeting with him in person. Since Sam was experienced and his side-project was promising, it is likely that they could have come to an agreement if they had a live conversation.

However, since they communicated mostly by email, Sam’s thesis supervisor assumed that Sam had no interest in doing his original thesis project. His impression was that Sam focused solely on his side-project, used up his resources, and he was very close to letting Sam go from the group.

What you can do: 

I usually recommend that you use emails for “neutral” topics, such as sending documents or setting up a time to meet.  While professors are busy, what I found interesting, is that when students become more assertive and ask for a time to meet over email (instead of discussing the issues over email), most supervisors find at least 15 minutes either in person or over the phone.

What surprised students even more was that once they met with their supervisors in person, it was easier to reach an agreement than communicating back and forth via email. Nobody likes conflict, or direct confrontation, and when you meet with them in person they are more likely to come to an agreement, than if you had communicated over email.

  Mistake #5: Plagiarizing or not giving credit where it is due

Sam did not make this mistake, but I did know other students who came close to being let go from their program because they (intentionally or unintentionally) copied information from another paper, or presented someone else’s data as their own. When you review 50-100 papers for a literature search, it is tough to keep all your references straight.

As you begin writing, the text in your literature review might sound very close to some of the papers you read. In fact, your sentences and word choice might be so close that your thesis supervisor might question whether you “lifted” off some paragraphs, or worse, he or she may accuse you of plagiarism (one of the worst offenses in an academic environment). 

Whether it was intentional or not, if your paper is too close to someone else’s, it will reflect very poorly on your performance and could ruin your reputation for years.

Keep all the information from your references organized electronically. Since most of your references will be in electronic format such as pdf’s, you can highlight or box the information within the pdf itself. You can then group your references by category in different folders. This way, whenever you come across a new reference you can highlight the necessary information in the pdf, and then save it right away in the appropriate folder.

This practice will ensure that when it is time to write your literature review, you can pull up the corresponding files right away and see what information you want to use. You can then paraphrase this information appropriately (and include the references) so that  you avoid any chances of being accused of “lifting” off or plagiarism.

Also, if you collaborate with others (inside or outside your group) keep very clear records of who generated what data. If you need to present or publish the data, you must give credit to the person who generated it, as well as their group leader.

Engage with Finish Your Thesis on social media

Get started with your free copy of "Finish Your PhD Faster"

Download my strategic guide to fire up your motivation, get laser focused and get your PhD 12 months sooner.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Sample emails to your dissertation supervisor

Published on October 13, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on March 24, 2017.

Table of contents

Making an appointment, asking questions, confirming agreements.

Dear Dr. Janssen,

The college has informed me that you will be my supervisor. I would therefore like to make an initial appointment to discuss my dissertation idea with you.

I look forward to hearing from you as to when you would be available to meet with me.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Dear Prof. Smith,

I have encountered several difficulties while working on my dissertation. Could you please answer the following questions?

• I have found only limited literature on the concept of “social enforcement.” Are you familiar with any authors who have written on this topic?
• Measuring “social enforcement” in the literature has proven virtually impossible. At this point I would like to use “social control” as a starting point for the concept. What are your thoughts on this?

I would like to make an appointment to discuss these questions with you. When would be convenient for you?

I am writing in follow-up to our meeting on Monday. Could you please check the notes I have prepared concerning what we agreed and confirm that they are accurate?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2017, March 24). Sample emails to your dissertation supervisor. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/tips/sample-emails-to-your-dissertation-supervisor/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Master's programmes in English
• For exchange students
• PhD opportunities
• All programmes of study
• Language requirements
• Application process
• Academic calendar
• NTNU research
• Research excellence
• Strategic research areas
• Innovation resources
• Student in Trondheim
• Student in Gjøvik
• Student in Ålesund
• For researchers
• Life and housing
• Faculties and departments
• International researcher support

Språkvelger

Course - master's thesis in general psychology - psy3915, course-details-portlet, psy3915 - master's thesis in general psychology, examination arrangement.

Examination arrangement: Master thesis and oral examination Grade: Letter grades

Course content

The Master's thesis is an academic in-depth work within general psychology, where the student writes a scientific document in line with relevant guidelines in regards to structure and theory. The subject of the master's thesis, which can be either experimental or purely theoretical, should be decided in consultation with a competent supervisor.

Students apply to have their thesis topic approved and a supervisor appointed by filling in a master's thesis agreement. Here the student must include a project description in which the research purpose, theoretical grounding, methodological approach and practical implementation are explained. Check with the department regarding the deadline for submitting this master's thesis agreement. The institute is responsible to assess and approve both topic and supervisor.

Learning outcome

The student:

• has advanced knowledge within general psychology and specialized insight into a limited area

• has in-depth knowledge of theory and method in psychological research and of how a scientific project is carried out

• has in-depth knowledge of what is required of a scientific text in psychology, including advanced knowledge of APA style

• has in-depth knowledge of conducting professional argumentation with the use of theory, research, method and method choice and own data and analysis

• has advanced knowledge of quality requirements for research, including adherence to research ethical guidelines and principles

• can analyze and relate critically to various sources of information and use these to structure and formulate professional reasoning

• can analyze existing theories, methods and interpretations within the subject area and work independently with practical and theoretical problem solving

• can use relevant methods for research and professional development independently

• can design and carry out an independent, limited research project under supervision and in line with applicable research ethics norms

• can analyze professional issues and understand complex research data

• can communicate scientific findings - both in writing and orally.

• can find out and relate critically to various sources of information

• can familiarize themselves with literature that is relevant for carrying out research within a limited area of ​​psychology

• can communicate the research work

• The student can formulate a precise and clear problem with relevance for psychological theory or practice and present a well-considered rationale for the choice and use of method and literature

• The student can think critically and draw scientific conclusions based on research

• The student can use the APA standard for scientific publishing

General competence:

• can analyze relevant professional, professional and research ethical issues

• can apply their knowledge and skills in new areas to carry out advanced tasks and projects

• can convey extensive independent work and masters the subject's forms of expression

• can communicate about professional issues, analyzes and conclusions within psychology

• can apply their knowledge to find answers to relevant issues in psychology

• can convey extensive independent research work within psychology's forms of expression

• can communicate psychological research

Learning methods and activities

Own work with compulsory guidance.

The work on the master's thesis will be a combination of independent activity and work under supervision. The academic guidance must ensure that the student is provided with the necessary knowledge, that all parts of the work have a satisfactory quality (e.g. when collecting and processing data) and that the project as a whole takes place in line with current research ethical guidelines.

The master's thesis seminar in the second semester consists of information on how to find a topic, a presentation of potential supervisors and the design of a project description. The master's thesis seminar in the third semester consists of a lecture that gives tips and advice on the process of writing a master's thesis and a seminar where the student presents his topics and receives constructive feedback from other students and staff. Participation in the master's thesis seminars must be approved before submission of the master's thesis can take place.

Compulsory assignments

• Mandatory participation in the thesis seminar

Further on evaluation

The master's thesis is assessed with letter grades (A-F). The assignment is delivered individually or as a joint work. If the thesis is delivered as joint work, a document describing the individual candidate's contribution must be attached. This will normally involve an individual assessment of the candidates.

The students give a final oral presentation and are examined on the assignment. The oral examination consists of an explanation from the student of approx. 10 minutes and a subsequent questioning. Oral examination is used to adjust the grade. The student can choose an open or closed exam. If it is an open examination, the audience may be present during the examination, if it is a closed examination, only the committee and the student are present.

Check with the institute for the deadline for submitting the project description and master's thesis.

Specific conditions

Admission to a programme of study is required: Psychology (MPSY)

Required previous knowledge

All examinations in the Masters in General Psychology should be passed before the thesis can be submitted.

Version: 1 Credits:  45.0 SP Study level: Second degree level

Term no.: 1 Teaching semester:  AUTUMN 2024

Term no.: 2 Teaching semester:  SPRING 2025

Language of instruction: English, Norwegian

Location: Trondheim

• Audrey Lucia Hendrika van der Meer
• Roxanna Morote Rios

Department with academic responsibility Department of Psychology

Examination

Examination arrangement: master thesis and oral examination.

• * The location (room) for a written examination is published 3 days before examination date. If more than one room is listed, you will find your room at Studentweb.

For more information regarding registration for examination and examination procedures, see "Innsida - Exams"

More on examinations at NTNU