The Voice of PhD Candidates and PhD Supervisors. A Qualitative Exploratory Study amongst PhD Candidates and Supervisors to Evaluate the Relational Aspects of PhD Supervision in the Netherlands

Abstract

PhD trajectories are important to universities, as these contribute to the increase in knowledge and output. Therefore, they aim to decrease the completion time and dropout. This article reports on our survey amongst PhD candidates and supervisors of the Graduate School CAPHRI, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. We investigated interpersonal aspects of coaching and (implicit) assumptions on skills and competences.Both groups consider personality, knowledge, skills, communication and coaching the major factors contributing to a successful PhD trajectory. PhD candidates consider responsiveness and respectful, good-quality feedback by supervisors important and suggest regular assessment of their performance. Supervisors consider flexibility, open-Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute. Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is permissible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment of a fee. Contact Publisher@InformingScience.org to request redistribution permission. The study shows that a good match between PhDs and supervisors is essential for a successful PhD trajectory, and we advise that both discuss and formally agree upon mutual expectations and responsibilities within the project. We advocate that Graduate Schools foster an open and safe learning environment, organise meetings where supervisors can share experiences to learn from one another, provide contacts for advice and support and involvement of HR during the selection process.

Improving Doctoral Success by Matching PhD Students with Supervisors

“…This demonstrates their need for structure and organization in their research process; on the other hand, the need for autonomy does not stand out among their needs. This result is consistent with studies by Holbrook et al (2014) and K. Grant, Hackney, and Edgar (2014) or Woolderink, Putnik, van der Boom, and Klabbers (2015).…”

“…This takes on greater importance in distance supervision, on the one hand due to students' feelings of isolation and on the other hand because the interests and needs the student may have are harder for the supervisor to determine as Ray (2007), Bøgelund (2015) or Woolderink et al (2015) found.…”

Doctoral Students’ Social Support Profiles and Their Relationship to Burnout, Drop-Out Intentions, and Time to Candidacy

“…Instrumental support is, however, less often emphasized by students, although it has been suggested that supervisors recognize this issue to a great extent (Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, 2012. Doctoral students have, for instance, been found to value feedback that enables them to solve problems related to their research projects, (Jairam & Kahl, 2012;Pyhältö et al, 2015;Woolderink, Putnik, van der Boom, & Klabbers, 2015), personal attention in the form of regular interaction with (Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011) and interest (Lovitts, 2001) from their supervisor, as well as encouragement (Jairam & Kahl, 2012;Weidman & Stein, 2003). Students have also been found to value the basic prerequisites of supervision, such as the supervisor being available, responding to the students' e-mails within a reasonable time and showing a commitment to supervisory relationships .…”

Doctoral Supervision At Nova Lisbon University: An Exploratory Study

“…Simultaneously an inter-relational process between supervisor and student is construct and supervision depends on how they manage their relationship (Styles & Radloff, 2001;Ives & Rowley, 2005;Woolderink, Putnik, van der Boom & Klabbers, 2015;Holbrook, Shaw, Scevak, Bourke, Cantwell & Budd, 2014). During this period the student grows not only as a researcher (acquiring investigative competence, developing networks, and constructing knowledge) but also as a person.…”