In these regular weekly meetings of our research team, the scientific discussion is very often interesting because of the collective supervision of my PhD students and our group work.
Are you using the same supervision approach in your research team?
Yes, definitely. I believe it is important for PhD students to have collective supervision (usually supervisor and co-supervisor). Often also additional co-supervisor from different institution/country.
All of that provides better and more in-depth feedback :)
There are advantages and disadvantages of collective supervision. For example, but not limited to the following:
Team will share with each other their theoretical and practical problems. Meanwhile, students isolation will be reduced, academic networks with each other will be developed, academic procedures and standards will be shared, and writing process will be encouraged with academic feedback from supervisors and peer students.
On the other hand, collective supervision may not be the best choice as regards the close professional communication between supervisors and their students. This may make the students ask for additional one-to-one supervisory meeting (Nordentoft et al, 2012).
I agree to alternate with individual meetings with the PhD student to complete and optimise this supervision.
I think colligative supervision is a very good practice and I agree with Hynek that it would even be better to have a co-supervisor from another country or institution, that will enrich scientific discussion and introduce new ideas. Their should be a main supervisor who has the final say and the understanding that different supervisors are to complement and benefit each other and the student, but not to challenge and dispute then confusing and delaying the PhD student.
- Badges
- Science topic