This is also the present phenomenon in some unviersities in China. In the past some famous professors will supervise many Ph. D candidates while other less famous professor will have no Ph. D. The professor with too many Ph. D candiates will have limited time to instruct each Ph. D candicate and can't provide enough fund or projects to the Ph. D candicates. The current way of signing up with a department will be favourable for even student supervision. Of course, some Ph. D studtents are reluctant to be assigned to a less famous professor. If the students are instructed in a team and a specific supervisor be assigned at the same time, it may be a good way.

I prefer the former style, cause it was more goal-oriented

The student-supervisor relationship is largely discipline specific so few generalities can be made about it. However, there are broad differences as follows.

In the sciences, e.g., physics, the student forms a part of a research team and might be allocated a supervisor, mainly because this is how the majority of scientific research is done. It is also the only practical way if one is working on huge particle physics collision experiments, etc. There is simply not enough resources to go around, so the work is done in teams and the principal supervisor has a very clear idea where the research gaps are, and selects students to fill them. The research objectives and hypotheses are sometimes decided upon in the beginning -- possibly before the student arrives on the scene -- and the student works on confirming or disconfirming these via a series of experiments with a "write-up" towards the end.

However in the humanities, and possibly the social sciences, it is a very different story. Here one typically chooses a supervisor (and usually a co-supervisor) and this is done on the basis of the supervisor's research output and success in assisting doctoral students . Then the student goes off and does research in the library (or possibly off-campus) -- largely on their own -- on a topic of their own choosing, with minimal input from the supervisor. The supervisor's role at this stage to read and comment (be a 'sounding board') for the student as they write papers, works in progress, and summaries of the work of others. At this stage the student flails about trying to find their feet. After a lot of wasted time chasing false leads (but learning how to write and think better in the process) the student eventually comes up with a vaguely interesting thesis or claim, and then narrows down. This is done usually by the second of third year. Then the student and supervisor work more closely together rather like an apprentice and their master. Increasingly the student becomes the "master" of the esoteric field and the supervisor distances themselves as the student gets closer to completion. This "distancing" is important as the student must stand on their own feet in terms of the oral defence and the thesis submission -- as in the Arts there are few foundational truths.

I guess that having a supervisory committee instead of a tutor will made it clear the difference between a good candidate and not so good one.

In many cases a researcher picks even very bad candidate and helps him to get a PhD just in order to improve his CV.

I guess the system with a supervisory committee can improve the quality of doctorates.

Wow. I don't know if this is a social commentary on the weakness of some marriage relationships or on the strength of some student/supervisor relationships. :-)

But... to follow the metaphor, just as my wife and I appreciated the freedom to mutually choose each other, I greatly appreciated the system at the University of Edinburgh where the students and the supervisor(s) mutually choose each other. Any graduate program where students and supervisors are compelled to work with each other against their will seems to me both unfortunate and foolhardy. Even in cultures where marriages are "arranged" it is normal for couples to "agree" to the arrangement and thus exponentially increasing the possibility for the marriage to work (or at least to have a good start). Even if relationships are "arranged" they should be mutuality acceptable.

Dear Hasan,

I feel, the earlier system was better. Although the new system is in use everywhere currently, I have always been following the earlier system.

The relationship is, according to me, a very sacred one, not really comparable with marriages, but with fraternal or paternal love, whichever is applicable depending on the age of the Supervisor!

I think the main change in recent years around higher degree research supervision has largely been generated by managerialism. The neo-liberal world of higher education requires that these things can be measured, therefore we now have a whole new group of people (higher degree research office) at many universities who will be responsible for reviewing candidate progress, reducing attrition rates, hastening completions, making rules about supervisor workloads etc etc. These people didn't exist in higher education 20 years ago, back then it was simply an arrangement between student and supervisor.

Most importantly, higher degree research managers are responsible for producing statistics that prove what a great institution they are; wonderful completion rates, supervisors who lead in their fields etc. This in turn provides grist for the institution's marketing team, brand experience managers and others responsible for institutional advocacy in a highly competitive operating environment.

Either system has its advantages and disadvantages, but the extra bureaucracy in institutions already weighed down with such can be painful.

The word marriage reminds me of the PhD movie. I don't know how to answer this but I would like to share you the link of the movie ;).

http://phdmovie.com/

Hello All,

Good day.

An interesting discussion thus far.

I will categorically state that I prefer it the old way. That is best. For my first Master's Degree, I chose my supervisor. For my second Master's degree, which I am currently concluding, I also chose my supervisors. For my PhD studies, that I will begin in the next few months, I have also chosen my supervisor.

I remember that when I had applied and gained admission to the University of Leeds, University of Southampton, and Nottingham Trent University, all of the UK, I was appointed supervisors.

I say all of this to say that I am not in favour of a student being issued a supervisor / supervisory team. I believe that the students must have some say in this process, because it is they who have to go through the entire process, and it makes no sense to go through a process with individuals who they do not know, or with whom they are not comfortable.

With kind regards,

Kerwin.

Thanks Fatimah Petra for sharing this nice movie

@Kerwin: I like your answer and I totally agree with you

So where does the predominant student observation of their PhD journey fit in: that they receive very little supervision & the PhD is a lonely path? Yep - the process is to increase independence but many PhDs argue that their supervision experience is a pretty one - sided relationship  😔

May be there are differences in terms of preferences & expectations among pre-GenX, GenX, & GenY the way they pursue PhD.  Also may be universities nowadays try to be more customer-centric especially more & more PhD students are from working adults.

However, agreed that the the student-supervisor relationship should be a close one because if it is not, it is difficult to see a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel.  Some universities before assigning a potential supervisor to the PhD candidate, the university / PhD committee also organize a 1-to-1 session(s) between the 2 to evaluate they can paired together or is there any chemistry mix aside common interest & domain knowledge.  The PhD committee found out that If the session(s) is / are not conducted, many student-supervisor divorce cases will rise and end up the PhD committee needs to re-search / match-making again.  This will incur higher costs for the committee - think the PhD committee is trying to "do the right thing" than "doing the thing right".

Think to prolong / maintain the student-supervisor relationship, both parties need to accept & respect each other.  Accept each others' strengths & weaknesses (the relationship will be happier).  Respect in the sense - as supervisor willing to work extra-mile for the student in trouble & as student also need to be independent in his or her research works (only seek help from supervisor when really need guidance).  Wishing all the best to those still walking on the lonely PhD path even though already partnered with a supervisor.

Supervisors play a key role in training because they are the first image of the professional world to receive the student. Through this relationship, the student will contact services, a way of working, a set priorities and personal attitude. For this purpose requires that the supervisor has a proactive, constructive and above all human criticism.

it should be student interest and supervisor interest

Han Ping: I had not seen your post, but it is a really human & honest description of how things should be. If only more people paid attention to these aspects.  If I could up vote more than once, I would gladly do so  🎓

A good relationship between students and supervisors is unique and plays a significant role in students' future career pathways.  it also determines the quality of the students' experience as a PhD candidate.

I agree with Sabine Franklin that depending on the University`s human resources capacity both are beneficial although I will prefer to be assigned to a specific supervisor especially if he/she has the time. The tricky part for having a specific supervisor is when he/she is too busy and always out of office for university related activities which might delay the progress of the student while with a team of supervisors, one can consult those available when assistance is needed.

Yes the relationship is peculiar. It is a give and take matter.

Yes.. but don't like married

Consequences of divorce are far more in supervisor-student relationship.

A cordial students'-supervisor relationship can enhance academic performance

YES i agree with close relationship

yes, there must be a close relationship between the supervisor and the student to obtain the best results

tricky question i may say having a good relationship with your supervisor will lead you to success quickly

You are right, this relationship should be base on mutual trust and respect just as is obtained in marriage. but there is power imbalance here. For that the supervisor must take initiative to create cordial environment for their success.

When a student is treated as a colleague in training, the relationship is always on a professional basis, where the individual and their work is held in respect. The supervisor should guide through the morass of regulation and requirements, offer suggestions and do some teaching around issues such as methodology, research practice and process, and be sensitive to the life-cycle of the research process. The experience for both the supervisor and student should be one of acknowledgement of each other, recognising the power differential but emphasising the support at this time. This is the best of supervision.

I agree with you, the supervisor and the student are essential partners in the research.

The relationship between a researcher and his supervisor is not as ''marriage''. They are essential partners in delivering a defined research task, but however, they are not equal in terms of duties and experience.

Different authors state that doctoral supervision necessarily involves ten general tasks: 1) early and realistic assessment of the student's needs; 2) pedagogical focus; 3) clarification of expectations and limits; 4) academic challenge and assessment; 5) knowledge management; 6) frequent meetings; 7) review of written work; 8) immediate and constructive feedback; 9) warning of danger signs; and 10) promotion of access to research culture. Based on the above, the supervisor-student relationship should consider valuing the individual and his or her work in an atmosphere of cordiality, respect and trust between the two.