Topics that should be discussed in the conversation about the supervision
All the topics mentioned below should be discussed during the first meetings between PhD candidate and supervisor, even if some of them only become central later in the process:
1. The use of the supervision time
2. Expectations related to the supervisor's role and function
3. Expectations related to the PhD candidate's role
4. Supervisor's comment on text draft
5. Expectations regarding the processing of drafts
6. Expectations related to how many times the supervisor should read through the text from first draft to finished text
7. Evaluation of the supervision relationship
Please see the topics in the context of the supervision agreement. Professional ethical guidelines for supervisors at the University of Oslo should also be reviewed.
Below are some possible clarifications of the individual points. The specifications are intended as suggestions and must be adapted to the situation. The important thing is that in this way both parties are given the opportunity to raise questions that are not directly linked to the academic part of the supervision.
The use of the supervision time
Time for supervision is contractually stipulated in the supervision agreement. It would be appropriate to discuss how much of the supervision time should be used for 'pre-supervision' (conversation about what the PhD candidate will do) and 'post-supervision' (conversation about what the PhD candidate has done), respectively. Think through how this 'pot' should be distributed over the entire course.
Expectations relating to how the meeting plan should be laid out should also be discussed. Possible options would be:
- Fixed intervals between the supervision sessions
- The PhD candidate requests the next supervision meeting when necessary
- A new meeting is always arranged at the end of a supervision
- Discuss how much time the supervisor needs to be able to prepare for supervision
Expectations related to the supervisor's role and function
Under this point, please discuss how active the parties think the supervisor should be when it comes to:
- To follow up academic progress - including discussion of priorities (in various phases of the PhD), with the aim that the candidate completes the PhD in the stipulated time
- Layout and design of academic texts*
- is it appropriate for the supervisor to be a co-author of one or more articles to be included in the thesis?
- is the intended form of publication (or publication plan) in line with the guidelines of both the program and the field of study? For article-based dissertations, this applies, for example, to the number of articles and the proportion where the PhD candidate is the main author.
- advice on formulations and limitations of themes
- help with orientation in specialist literature and data bases
- discuss and evaluate hypotheses and methods
- discuss results and their interpretation
- discuss the plan and implementation
- Help to find/select relevant research courses, possibly generic/non-academic courses (communication courses, etc.)
- Help to find/select relevant seminars/ conferences
- Help to find/select relevant journals for publication
- Recommendations on research stays
- Inclusion in national and international professional networks
- Discussion of research ethics issues related to the thesis
*The form of the feedback should also be discussed. Questions that are relevant in that context can, for example, be:
- Praise what is good more than criticize what is bad or vice versa
- Correct language (e.g. proof reading)
- Check that the plan is followed
- Drive the PhD candidate forward as fast and as far as possible
- Look for the PhD candidate if he/she is absent from the supervision
- A third factor concerns expectations related to whether the supervisor should give an assessment in terms of professional level. Does the PhD candidate want this? What does the supervisor want to do?
Expectations related to the PhD candidate's role
Under this point, it is important to discuss expectations related to the PhD candidate's responsibilities and working style with regard to progress in their own PhD project and preparation for the supervision. The list of points above should also be discussed based on the PhD candidate's responsibilities and role.
What expectations does the supervisor have for the PhD candidate's preparatory work before the supervision? Should the PhD candidate to draw up an "agenda" before each meeting?
Another aspect that should be discussed is the PhD candidate's obligation when it comes to informing the supervisor about progress in the work, and possibly about who else to seek help / supervision from.
Supervisor's comments on text drafts
At the start of a mentoring relationship, it can be difficult to know which form of feedback is most constructive. This may also change during the process. There are nevertheless good reasons to discuss what expectations the PhD candidate has in relation to what the supervisor wants and thinks is most productive.
Possible options would be:
- Supervisor only gives verbal comments 'over the table'
- Go through the text 'over the table', after which the PhD candidate receives a draft with comments
- The supervisor gives a draft with comments to the PhD candidate the day before the supervision, so that the supervision time can be used for what the PhD candidate needs to discuss/explain in more detail
- The supervisor only gives minimal feedback early in the course ('this will work as a draft'), and goes through the drafts in detail later
- The PhD candidate always gives the supervisor a 'reading assignment' that indicates what she/he wants from comments from the supervisor
Expectations regarding the processing of drafts
This is a point that will be important to address throughout the supervision period.
The two extremes of how this could take place can be:
In the case of a first draft, the text must never be revised immediately after writing and supervision. Right from the first draft, the pattern should be writing - supervision - rewriting - supervision of one part until the quality is satisfactory before moving on to the next part.
Where on this scale do the PhD candidate and supervisor think is a good fit? Should this be clarified several times, for example through the 'reading assignments' (see above) that the supervisor receives?
Expectations related to how many times the supervisor must read through the text from first draft to finished text
After the PhD candidate has started writing, this will be an important point to discuss. It is particularly important to clarify expectations related to the final reading.
Evaluation during the supervisor relationship
In order to ensure that the supervision is as good as possible, it will be important to discuss the form and timing of the evaluation of the supervision at the start. It would then be appropriate to review the supervision agreement and the above-mentioned points again. In such an evaluation, the question of whether the supervision has a good academic focus will be important.