Advising and Supervising Doctoral Students: Lessons I have Learned
Davis, G. (2004)
Abstract
A major problem with the supervision of doctoral students is the lack of advisor experience. An advisor has done one dissertation under one advisor or supervisor and may have observed some other advisors, but models of supervision are rarely written down. Advice on advising is anecdotal and incomplete. This paper codifies some personal observations from being on well over a hundred doctoral dissertation committees and being the principal advisor for thirty or so doctoral dissertations. I use the terms “advising” and “supervising” to mean the same thing, i.e., providing guidance, advice, and quality assurance for a doctoral student doing a dissertation.
Because the paper codifies my experience, it does not deal with all conditions (even though I have experienced a wide variety in different countries), but it does provide a good basis for a supervisor to examine his or her advising for possible improvement. I have learned from both good and bad advising experiences. I hope that others will profit from my lessons learned.
The process of building expertise in advising a doctoral student begins with understanding four underlying issues: doctoral program assumptions, motivations for a doctorate, advising styles, and student need for advising. The first issue is the underlying assumptions about a doctoral program: the two major assumptions are an entry-level doctorate or a mid-career doctorate. The second issue is the student or program motivation for a doctorate. These motivations range from recognition or prestige to a career requirement with a number of variations of these two extremes.
The third issue is different advising styles. At the extremes, these range from a very strong master/apprentice model to a hands-off model. There are many variations between these extremes. Each advising style has advantages and disadvantages, depending on the student and the problems being studied. The fourth issue is differences in student need for advice and supervision. At the extremes, these needs range from need for very close direction and supervision to need only for general direction and supervision. With basic understanding of these issues, an advisor can begin to develop a preferred personal advising style and can make decisions about variations in advising to suit a particular student or problem.
Given an understanding of the four basic issues of program assumptions, student motivations, advising styles, and student needs, an advisor should be familiar with and apply some basic concepts about doctoral advising and some useful procedures. These concepts and procedures will help in achieving good results.
Three basic concepts relate to the definition of contribution required for an acceptable dissertation, advisor competence to supervise a given dissertation, and appropriate methodology. The contribution concept defines the essence of a dissertation. Advisor competence is a quality assurance concept to ensure an advising process that provides quality in supervision and advice. The methodology concept relates to whether a methodology is appropriate for the problem and powerful enough to yield a contribution to knowledge.
Understanding underlying issues and concepts about advising are not sufficient for good advising. An advisor needs to apply good advising procedures. Good advising procedures will tend to help produce good dissertations (assuming the student is receptive to good advising).
Some important advising procedures are a broad introductory seminar, a student career plan that defines the role of the dissertation in his or her career, and a regular workshop for faculty and doctoral students to discuss presentations and papers. Other procedures such as topic analyses to consider alternative dissertations, a formal dissertation proposal, a dissertation project plan, a formal or informal dissertation proposal defense, and progress documentation are not discussed in this paper because they are described in some detail in a short monograph (Davis and Parker, 1997) on managing the doing of a doctoral dissertation.