This is a short but helpful guide that outlines the important principles to keep in mind in order to  maintain high-quality graduate student supervision. This guide highlights the importance of clear and  consistent communication between the graduate student and the supervisor to ensure that the student’s needs are being met regularly. Additionally, this guide focuses on individualized supervisory approaches where the supervisor is aware of the student’s unique needs and learning style and tries to accommodate any personal, cultural, and structural challenges students may face. Finally,  this guide emphasizes the need for having clear and comprehensive beliefs and expectations that can strengthen supervisory abilities.

This report is focused on addressing the most prominent issues that graduate students and supervisors  may face on their journey. This article begins by shedding a light on the ever-increasing mental health  and stress issues associated with graduate studies. Recent studies found that faculty have felt greater  stress in their positions at research-intensive universities in recent years.

This is a quick and easy introductory video that gives students an idea of what they need to know about  graduate supervision. This video serves as a guide for students who are starting their graduate studies  and points them to the right resources for any further inquiry. It is essential to familiarize students with  the people they have to deal with and introduce them to the program resources and positions.

The Code of Practice on Supervision of Graduate Research Students highlights the responsibilities of  supervisors to their students and vice versa. It also outlines the process by which supervisors are  appointed and the general requirements for such a position. The university requires all new and  inexperienced supervisors to be accompanied by more experienced co-supervisors.

This guideline summarizes the roles of the members involved in the supervision of graduate students. It  begins by giving a detailed definition of supervision and explaining who is qualified to supervise  graduate students. It then goes on to outline the responsibilities of the school of graduate studies.

In this video, Professor Siva Muthaly pulls from his own experience as both a former graduate student  and a current postgraduate supervisor to provide viewers with advice for a successful postgraduate  supervision journey.

He begins his speech by discussing the level of ambiguity that the students encounter when they first  start their Ph.D., “they are making this journey on their own.” He then goes on to speak about the issues  that students face while completing their post-graduate education and also goes over some solutions for  said issues.

This report identifies six research-based principles of excellent graduate supervision pedagogy with its  main focus being on students, the teaching and learning process, academic progress, modelling and  reflection, communication, and scholarly communities

Problems in graduate education, especially with respect to completion and quality, have emerged in  many countries, including Canada. To address these problems and related issues and practices, a  comprehensive three-year research project has been conducted involving questionnaires and interviews  in Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and other countries. Based on 781 interviews with university  administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and employers of graduates from 47 master’s programs in the  U.S., Conrad, Haworth, and Millar concluded that active faculty involvement, unity of purpose, strong  program leadership, and a supportive learning environment were some of the attributes of high-quality  master’s programs.

This study followed the habits of 16 participants completing doctoral degrees in social sciences at two  different UK universities, in attempt to determine students’ day-to-day experiences of their supervisory  relationships over time.

Findings

Four main categories of need were identified in the catalogued interactions of 15 of the students with  their supervisors (although it is noted that nine of these students logged interactions with their  supervisors in which they did not need or want any help from them).

The four categories were represented in the following proportions:

• “Writing” – 37 %
• “Research plans and processes” – 22 %
• “Institutional issues” – 21 %
• “Disciplinary/ academic practices” – 18 %

In the early stages of the degree, help needed by participants from their supervisors tended toward  formal institutional expectation. During data collection, help needed was more related to unexpected  difficulties with data collection/ fieldwork, and non-inquiry aspects of academic work (ex. writing a

research paper). Those who were farther along on their doctoral journey tended to need help with data  analysis and writing. Although participants would reach out to their supervisors when they needed help,  they did not feel that they needed help from their supervisors on a regular basis; infact, many stated  that they preferred to act independently.

More often than not, students reported that interactions with their supervisors were positive, causing  them to feel pleased, proud, and encouraged. Negative affect emerged from students’ intentions being  curtailed by the supervisors, either by lack of access or disruptive interactions.

This study also looks at interactions when more than one supervisor is present. A variety of benefits and  drawbacks are discussed, such as a co-supervisor taking the lead in the case of an intellectually-absent  main supervisor, and supervisory conflicts.

Supervisory relationships are also looked at from three perspectives: (1) origins of the relationship, (2)  supervisory power and student intentions, and (3) student description of the relationship.

Overall, students found their supervisor relationships to be satisfactory or positive, meeting needs that  it would be hard for others to meet. Dissatisfaction with supervisory relationships arose from a lack of  supervisory intellectual investment, one’s supervisor lacking availability, and tensions amongst  supervisors later in the co-supervisory relationship. The relationships that students described were  important yet largely confined to a particular role assigned for the duration of the degree.

Students acted independently of the supervisor, sometimes without revealing their actions. This paper  suggests that this is evidence that supervisors, while important, are not paramount in the doctoral  journey.

Weaknesses

Weaknesses in this research people include:

• Extremely small sample size: there were only sixteen participants in this study
• Reliance on self-reporting: students were asked to keep a log of their interactions, meaning that  there is a high risk of inconsistent reporting
• Logs only represented one week from each month, meaning that they may not provide an  accurate representation of the every day lives of the participants
• All of the students were pursuing doctoral studies in social sciences at UK universities, meaning  that this study likely isn’t representative the experiences of all doctoral students

To investigate the factors that influence whether or not doctoral students complete their degrees,  twenty-one former doctoral students are interviewed, eight of whom completed their doctoral degree,  and thirteen of whom did not. Data for this study was collected through semi-structured interviews.

Participants were selected to represent the diversity of experiences and contexts that PhD students are  likely to work in.

The factor that separates participants from each group the most is the progress they felt they were  making, without too much distress.