Getting the Most Out of Your Doctorate

The Importance of Supervision, Networking and Becoming a Global Academic

Mollie Dollinger

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781787699083
• eBook ISBN: 9781787699076
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Beyond the doctoral thesis itself, the most significant factors in the progression of PhD candidature and early academic careers are: the relationships between the researcher and their supervisor(s), the ability to network, and understanding one's place in the global research arena. Navigating these critical factors and moving from a novice to expert, is a critical undertaking for every PhD candidate and a process that will continue for years following one's PhD. In this book, scholars from around the world offer practical advice on how to get the most out of one's doctorate. Readers will get helpful tips on how to sustain healthy and long-lasting relationships with their supervisors, learn how to develop their networks, and understand the important changes impacting the modern PhD candidate.

PART I

PREPARATION

CHAPTER 1

SELECTING A SUPERVISOR

Ms Samantha Marangell, Dr Lilia Mantai and Dr Mollie Dollinger

ABSTRACT

There are numerous existing resources which claim to discuss the most important factors a potential PhD student should consider when looking for a possible supervisor. Commonly discussed topics include the supervisors’ record and approach, but there is much more to finding a reciprocal and beneficial relationship. This chapter will address some of these less discussed factors to look for when selecting a supervisor, including sense of humor. This chapter will help the hopeful PhD student maneuver the uncomfortable − and often overwhelming − waters of selecting a supervisor by pointing out the questions students forget to ask, the character traits they don’t think to consider, and examples of supervision selection gone wrong. It starts with the often-confusing process of knowing where to start looking, then highlights five frequently ignored factors that deserve more consideration, and finishes with warning signs to look for that mark supervisors to avoid.

Keywords: Supervisor; doctoral studies; PhD supervision; PhD students; doctoral education

INTRODUCTION

A PhD journey can be a surprising, stressful, and satisfying process, and the most influential relationship during that time is undoubtedly with one’s supervisor. There are numerous existing resources which discuss important factors a potential PhD student should consider when looking for a possible supervisor, including the supervisor’s record and approach, but finding a supervisor with whom you’ll have a reciprocal and beneficial relationship takes much more than a simple internet search. This chapter will address some of the less discussed factors that one should look for when selecting a supervisor. To achive this we will draw on our own PhD experiences. It will help the hopeful PhD student maneuver the uncomfortable − and often overwhelming − waters of selecting a supervisor by pointing out the questions students forget to ask, the character traits they don’t think to consider, and examples of supervision selection gone wrong. The four steps below will take you through (1) the often-confusing process of knowing where to start looking; (2) what to ask when you meet for a phone or in-person interview; (3) examples to consider of types of supervisors that might not work for everyone; and (4) each student’s role in the process. With these aspects in mind, you’ll be well on your way to selecting the most suitable person with whom to share your PhD journey.

STEP 1: THE SPREADSHEET

A PhD can be three or four years of your life (though often more), and yet, many PhD students rarely spend long deciding on a supervisor. However, time, energy, organization, and even funds are all critical to finding that perfect supervisor. To begin this undertaking, we recommend doing something you will likely do many times during your PhD: open an excel spreadsheet. The headings will need to reflect your personal situation but can include the following:

• country/city;
• institution;
• ranking of institution by your field/discipline;
• name of potential supervisor;
• gender/age (if these things are preferences for you); and
• other notes.

If you already have a few universities in mind, you can start by searching through their list of academics (electronically, of course) to find those that match your field/interests. If you don’t have universities selected (or if this isn’t as essential to your decision), you can start your search by identifying authors of relevant journal articles in your field.

Once you populate this list with at least 10 potential supervisors you’ll already begin to be able to see how they compare on paper. While the personality of your supervisor is important, and will be discussed in this chapter shortly, it’s not the only deciding factor. Are you willing to move countries or cities? How much does the ranking of institution matter to you? Do you prefer to work with a younger female or an older male? These are questions of personal taste and preferences that should be carefully considered.

However, the most critical aspects of your decision will be less easy to record, and you’ll likely need to do some investigating. For example, you may also want to include a heading on “current projects.” To find this, try looking for their CV or personal website. You’ll want to make sure their current projects align to your area, as often they may have studied a relevant topic 10 years ago, but it is not their focus anymore.

From current projects, you should also be able to begin to ascertain their funding base. Do they have national three to five year projects? Have they partnered with industry? Do they have any newspaper articles or media coverage on their research? All of this is most likely ideal. However, depending on who you are, it is also possible that this is the exact opposite of what you want. Some students prefer “high-flying” supervisors. The benefit to this is often more attention from others (“oh, you work with Professor Smith?!”) and more connections when it comes time to publish or apply for jobs. However, the downside to this is you may get less face time and their feedback might be more superficial, as these are often very busy people. Another indicator of their success will be their h-index. Anyone above a 20 is a true voice in their field. If they are between 10 and 20, they may be up-and-comers (depending on the stage of their career). If they are less than 10, they are likely just starting out and may serve you better as a co-supervisor. (Search for h-index using Google Scholar, though some older academics may not have a profile set up.)

Also, if you can afford it, it is a great idea to go to a conference where they are speaking, even with just a day pass (you can also offer to volunteer if you’re a student). Try to see their session if you can, but also ask around about them. Ideally, see if you can pick up on their reputation. Do a lot of people know them? Did people seem impressed by their work? For a cheaper option, you can also try following them on Twitter or other social media to see if some of their personality begins to shine through. However, do not be too quick to judge; nothing replaces a face-to-face conversation for gauging whether you’ll enjoy working with them for years (maybe even a lifetime). Which brings us to …

STEP 2: CONVERSATIONS OVER COFFEE

Congratulations! By now you should have a handful of potential supervisors. This could be where your process ends. If you don’t have a real opportunity to meet or have a phone call, trust your shortlisting process and hope for the best.

However, working with people in any context is an unpredictable adventure. Even if you think you and your supervisor of choice look like the perfect match on paper, you never know how you’ll get along in person. So, we strongly recommend you find a way to meet with or at least talk to the people on your shortlist.

Ideally you will meet with them several times before you sign up to be supervised by them. The meetings will help you to assess what kind of people they are, how they work, and, importantly, how they work with others (it could be you next!). These first meetings are all about asking the right questions to help you paint a picture of what the next few years with this person may be like. Questions you could ask in your first conversations (over coffee perhaps):

• What was your own experience of supervision like? (Chances are they will do either the same or the opposite; you may be able to judge by the tone.)
• What was your own PhD experience like? (Again, you may be able to judge by their tone if they want you to have the same experience or not. It will probably tell you quite a bit about who they are, what their priorities are, and how they work, too.)
• Who are the theorists/philosophers/researchers/writers who you found influential to your life and work? (Ask this only if you are this way inclined and have already formed a bit of a view on theories and theorists that you’d like to influence your own work.)
• What do you think are the top three success factors in the PhD? (This will tell you an enormous amount and what they’ll expect you to prioritize in your PhD experience, as well.)
• What was your experience with previous PhD students, if you have had any?
• What would you expect from me (e.g., coming on campus every day, frequency of communication/meetings)?

Once you’ve gotten responses to these answers, you’ll need to consider which aspects are more important to you than others. Consider the topics below, for example.

Age versus Experience?

You may have made up your mind on this in the shortlisting process, but if you are still unsure, we would recommend striking a good balance between the two. You may want a young supervisor who can relate to your concerns and with whom you can easily connect. However, when it comes to resolving a conflict, paperwork, politics, seniority, and so on, you may be better placed with an experienced or fairly well-established supervisor.

Availability?

This is a simple but very important consideration. Check with them about their mobility plans over the next few years. Do they plan on taking a sabbatical, a longer period for off-site study or research, parenting or long-service leave? Are they looking to change universities or even countries maybe? Can they fit you in with other PhD students they may have? Also consider their regular, weekly schedule. Are they often on campus or do they spend much time elsewhere? It’s valuable to know where they spend their time and how long they plan on being around.

What Do Their Past and Present Supervisees Say about Them?

If you have a chance, check out the past PhD completions of your shortlisted supervisors. This information is often available on institutional websites. Past completions are a good sign that your potential supervisor is capable of getting someone through and is familiar with all the procedures and paperwork that are involved in the process.

Then, try to find out who their current or previous PhD students are and reach out to those people. Try LinkedIn, Twitter, or even email and introduce yourself with something like, “Hi, I’m thinking about doing a PhD with Professor Zhang and I was wondering if you could offer me any feedback on their style and personality.” Ask about the supervisor’s personal qualities, like sense of humor, integrity, and flexibility.

Of course, depending on who you are, your ideal answers to this question will change. For some, you may want a response such as, “Oh, Susie? She’s so much fun, we all go out to drinks every month, it’s so much fun!” Or you may prefer, “Patrick is a very serious scholar. He can be a bit intimidating, but he offers very thoughtful feedback.”

Now, we also know that different people have different opinions. Use common sense and your personal judgment when deciding which stories to believe and trust. Biased information may be better than no information at all in this case. Reflect on what is not negotiable for you and what you are willing to put up with. For instance, if integrity is paramount for you watch out for signs of exploitation and too much credit-taking for your work. However, you may not be too fussed about someone not being very organized. You can’t have it all, so focus on what matters most to you. This task should help you eliminate some people or flag your top choices.

Can You Manage Them Up?

This relates somewhat to finding out about supervisors’ personal qualities and if they work for you. What we want to stress here, however, is the need to work these qualities in a professional relationship. In any supervision setting, you will do better if you learn how to manage up and communicate your expectations and needs very clearly. Recognize that it is your responsibility to present the potential supervisor with enough information about you, your ideas, and what you want to get out of it. This requires a degree of openness and honesty. You are not expected to be independent and autonomous from day one, nor should you pretend to know it all as it may communicate the wrong picture and set you off on a wrong path. Specifically, managing up may mean suggesting potential deadlines, following up if your supervisor is uncommunicative for a while, keeping them informed on your progress (or if you’re not progressing because you’re stuck), and telling them what type of feedback you need on your writing drafts. The clearer you are about this, the more likely you will be to receive quicker, more helpful feedback. Although, often (at least at the beginning) you’ll find yourself saying, “I need feedback on everything!” Try to get a sense of how manageable the person is and most importantly if you could manage them.

Will They Support Your Career Plans?

You have likely heard by now that continuing and ongoing (i.e., tenured) academic jobs are vanishing and academia is a competitive and demanding workplace. Spend some time weighing up your options and preferences for possible future careers and consider whether each of your shortlisted supervisors would be a good support for those career possibilities, academia or otherwise. Managing up also requires communicating clearly and openly about what you intend to do after the PhD, what your professional goals and aspirations are, and what other research or professional interests and ideas you may be considering. Your supervisor, if supportive, will likely put this on their radar as they move through their networks and will connect you with the relevant people or groups before or during your candidature. You may want to have these conversations right at the very beginning when you are scouting for a supervisor, because some supervisors will also have strong opinions about whether certain career directions are valuable or possible. Many supervisors are likely to ask you questions along these lines: “What do you want to be when you finish?” and “How do you want to work with me?” You don’t know what you want to be when you graduate? Say that, too. In this case, you would benefit from someone who is keen to help you figure it out along the way without coercing you into a certain direction. Remember, supervisors want to know what they are getting into, also. The clearer or more open you are about your future plans, the better the outcome and the more likely it will be that you find a good match.

Do You Need a Team of Supervisors?

You may also need or want to think about enlisting a team of supervisors. In fact, many universities mandate at least two supervisors. Chapter 4 discusses co-supervision in more detail, but it can be beneficial to consider the option before selecting your supervisor(s). For example, if you’ll have two supervisors, you may not need to worry too much about one individual’s personality. Instead, it might be more important how well the supervisors would balance each other out. The most obvious reason for having several supervisors is the collection of different expertise, for example, in an interdisciplinary project. A team of supervisors may introduce you to more networks (disciplinary experts as well as other PhD students) and offer more potential touch points with other people and different bodies of knowledge. Co-supervisors can also take a divide-and-conquer approach to supporting you and provide more combined attention and feedback on your work. Don’t be fooled, though; they may also strongly disagree with each other at some point. If you can figure out the best constellations and who can work best with whom, that would certainly help in putting together a solid team.

With all of this said, remember you are not alone. You are not the only PhD candidate looking for a supervisor. And your supervisor is not the only source of support and wisdom during your candidature. Chapter 3 expands on this point, and we encourage you to scout and assemble your networks just as thoroughly and purposefully as selecting a supervisor.

STEP 3: CONSIDER THE EXTREMES

Once you have a better picture of what these potential supervisors might be like and where your priorities lie, it could be helpful to consider what would not work in order to clarify what you do want. One of the primary reasons we suggest the previous two steps is because ignoring them can often lead to unmet expectations and uncomfortable or unproductive pairings. At best, they can be slightly awkward and lukewarm relationships; at worst, they can lead to considerable stress, delayed PhD completion, and even withdrawal from the PhD.

Common caricatures of supervisors who aren’t for everyone include the friend who meets up socially with their supervisees; the pessimist who frequently points out the negative; and the absentee who is always, well, absent. In addition to these, we present a few, less recognized archetypes that we believe are best to avoid: the micromanager, the passive-aggressive, and the laissez-faire extremist. We further highlight the types of students for whom each of these supervisors might be the most problematic.

The Micromanager

A supervisor who exhibits traits of the micromanager will institute a high level of control over the student’s day-to-day tasks. In the most explicit way, they may simply dictate exactly what steps to take and prescribe very defined ideas about what each task should look like, a process which might be counterintuitive to the student’s own work process. In a subtler way, they might push their thoughts and opinions onto the student in a manner that implies any other system is inferior. In either the explicit or subtle manner, this ca...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• About the Authors
• Foreword
• Part I: Preparation
• Part II: Mediating
• Part III: Understanding Your Place
• Index