In this series I thought I'd write some thoughts on my PhD experience because, despite the number of people who undertake a PhD, I rarely see people reflect on their experience. As a result, I think lots of people go into a PhD blind, and many things which could be avoidable end up happening time and time again. In general I think a lot could be learned from hearing about more peoples' PhD experiences and what they think about it all after a period of digesting it and reflecting. So here I am talking about mine. In part one (Reflections on my PhD - Part 1: The End Goal(s)) I talked about a way I tried to turn, what felt to me like, a scary structureless four years into something with defined goals that I could actively work towards. Here, in part two, I wanted to talk about a key PhD component, the student-supervisor relationship. I know that I was lucky with my supervisors and so while this may be a somewhat frustrating read for anyone who is on bad terms with a bad supervisor, I think it might still be interesting for those yet to start a PhD or those who could use some tips on interacting with your supervisor(s).
Interactions between students and supervisors and PhD experiences are varied. I have heard two people with the same supervisor describe completely contradictory experiences of the PhD process, and after finishing my PhD I now see why. The interaction students have with their supervisor is so contingent on outside factors as well as how those two personalities and approaches mesh, and because of this it's maybe foolish to generalise. Regardless, here I have tried to do just that and distil down what I think are the most important things to consider when picking a supervisor for your PhD, dealing with a supervisor during your project, and ending your PhD experience with a supervisor as you come to finish your PhD.
1) Beginning
Picking the right PhD and PhD supervisor is a difficult task. While some may have an idea of the exact project they want to do, others may only have a vague idea of the subject matter: bacteria or whales, ecology or evolution, theoretical or empirical. Both of these extremes have different pros and cons, if your exact idea of the next four years is thought through in every detail and set in stone you might be in for a wake-up call as your idea gets scooped, your samples are lost in transit, or you start to lose interest in the topic when the realities of the fieldwork or analysis needed hit home. On the flip side if your interests are wide but vague you might find it hard to find a convincing area you're happy to delve into for the next few years, and finding knowledge gaps or defining how your project fits in with the wider field may be a challenge. This is where a great supervisor comes in - the only problem is, how do you know if they are great? Well I can say conclusively there is no 'one-size-fits-all' when it comes to supervisors. Three aspects I think are important to consider include their personal (and lab group's) research interests, their vision for the topic, and their personal (and lab) values. If you're in the process of looking for supervisors and projects I think it’s worth trying to suss out these aspects of yourself before you start. Then you can try to do the same with any potential bosses when you're chatting about projects. If anything this exercise will help you better understand the expectations each of you might have going into a PhD project.
Shared interest
Do the same organisms, analytical approaches, and/or overarching big questions interest you? You're (hopefully) going to spend the next 3-6 years discussing these things with this person (and all the other people they have surrounded themselves with), so it's probably best if you're enthused by the same topics. In my case, while I had no prior experience working on fish or adaptive radiations, I was interested in both the broader questions regarding adaptation and speciation and the specific bioinformatics approaches my PhD would involve. The job advert itself even got me excited about the system (despite being quite naive about it), and so with a bit of advice from some lab mates, who had heard of or knew the potential supervisors and had had great interactions with them at conferences/seminars in the past, I was convinced that at least interest-wise I would be satisfied. This became even more apparent when I met them in person at my interview where the raw enthusiasm for the project became apparent. At that point, the interest box was 100% checked. If you're trying to gauge these broad interests try to ask questions both before applying and during any interviews about the most exciting things about the study system and the approaches they think you might be able to take, as well as how this work might fit in with their broader research program - and remember it's also on you to be enthused about aspects of the project to be selected for it! Another good test is speaking to others in the lab group or department to see what their interests are and what they think about the group/department/university. You will be immersed in the lab group and department for a long time and so finding one with lots of interesting people is a must.
Shared vision
Your interests align but what is the supervisor’s plan or idea for the field, topic, and PhD project? Supervisors vary in the degree to which they have thought through the PhD project. While some will have had to write some kind of outline for a grant to fund that specific PhD (common in the UK/Europe) others may have a very broad idea - "let's start with you measuring a load of plants we collected and we'll go from there." Some of this may come down to what kind of person you are and how you value independence, flexibility, and your own ideas of what's interesting in the field. I personally like the idea of a supervisor having thought through at least a vague structure for how the project might turn out since it not only shows they have thought deeply about it but also that there is some form of an expectation regarding the types of data or approaches to take. This in turn provides some accountability and direction early on, allowing you to set off on your PhD journey on the right foot - "when we spoke you mentioned having ____ data and that nobody had ever looked into ____ so I think my first chapter should start there". On the flip side is someone who says it's up to you to find the interesting topics. I personally dislike this approach for a couple of reasons 1) at this stage it's incredibly unlikely you really have a good sense of where the field is at and so expecting you to identify knowledge gaps or the bleeding edge of research is pretty unreasonable, 2) it places almost all responsibility, and a lot of pressure on you to achieve this task, 3) it gives room for people to get totally lost in the subject matter and losing track of the fact that their 'job' is to have a thesis at the end of X-years, which I have seen happen often, and 4) it puts almost no onus of responsibility on supervisors, potentially making it difficult to get help or investment from them later down the road. At least in the UK/European system, with which I am most familiar, this approach can lead to the already tight time frames to become a real challenge. There's a fine line between providing unconstrained room to develop your own ideas and total hands-off supervising. I think the key here is balance and finding a supervisor who perhaps understands the need for a somewhat defined project outcomes but leaves the path to achieving those up to you is the way to go - I think the key at this stage is to try to find out where they stand. Regardless of what's best for you (which you might not know at this stage) if you strongly dislike micromanagement you should probably try to find a more hands-off supervisor, and likewise if you lack some direction its probably best not to work with someone who you'll see on day one and then again after four years asking how the thesis is going.
Shared values
This one is tricky. Can you get along with someone with, even strongly, contrasting opinions? Of course. But do you want to be engaged in a 3-6 year tug of war about some important features of your interactions? Nope. In my mind understanding someone’s values is about setting expectations for your future interactions and can be one of the hardest to work out before you work with someone. This is because lots of people aren't even self-aware enough to know where they stand on certain approaches. On top of this, these aspects of supervision can change quickly, even month to month or year to year, depending on how the lab is working together, what papers are being accepted or rejected, whether someone has tenure or not, and, in some cases, or which way the wind is blowing. Part of thinking about this is also about understanding what you think you will need or will work best with. Does the person expect you to work 9-5 office hours or happy to be flexible, how much do people work 'overtime' and what is the general work culture in the group, are people the kind of supervisors to be your friend or do they consider a strong top-down/hierarchy important? Additionally, does the person themselves have a life outside of work, hobbies, interests, family? One of the most important points for me is whether someone considers their responsibility as a supervisor to include proper mentorship and fostering your aims and goals - a supervisor that pushes you to fulfil their goals is all well and good but your personal and professional development is crucial too. Some of these are easy to glean by asking but others you'll have to try to indirectly work out. People might also not be that upfront, and so ask around! One bit of advice I would always give prospective students is to ask around about what people think of these three aspects of people and research groups. Not only that but trust insights from people who have first hand experience more than people who just know the person.
On a side note, if you're reading this and you are past a PhD and students now come to you to ask what people are like to work with then before telling them to go work with your office mate, best friend, or drinking buddy take a step back and as yourself: am I endorsing this person because they are my friend or because of their interests, insight, and values? I really believe more people need to take personal responsibility for endorsing people in our community. If you're not sure if your friend is an awful supervisor and only know what it’s like to be their friend or peer then it’s probably best to keep quiet, explain the caveats or conditions of your opinion to the person asking, or face the reality that you could be partially responsible for putting someone in a bad situation - people will listen to your opinion if you're in a position of power and it's your responsibility to be self-aware enough to know whether your opinion is reasonable or totally unfounded.
2) Middle
So you've committed to doing a PhD with someone, and now is the time to get a reality check of how things are going to go and to see what you can do to make sure things work out as best as they can for you. If things are going well, congratulations, you either got lucky or were able to get a great vibe-check early on. If they're not then not all hope is lost! Many times I have seen, and experienced, the urge to just 'live with' whatever the dynamic between student and supervisor is. While this may be the case for particularly difficult or stubborn supervisors, most good ones are open to discussing expectations and actually want to know what, if any, changes would make things better for you. In an ideal scenario supervisors want you to be both happy and productive (both for you and them - let's not kid ourselves). During your PhD it's worth remembering that management experience is very anecdotal. Most likely your supervisor has not received much, if any, formal training in project, money, or people management, and will probably be basing their approach to these things by cutting and pasting good aspects of experiences they have had, as well as trying to avoid replicating bad experiences they have had (assuming they're even self aware and have thought about it and not just winging it on the daily - more common than you'd think). But of course early in a PI's career this will amass to maybe four years PhD experience and somewhere similar in postdoc years, potentially in only a couple of different labs so the experience they're drawing on could be quite small. So what can you do about it?
Planning
Planning during a PhD can help make interactions with your supervisor and finishing your project easier. If I have one take-home after doing a PhD it's that, at least for me, the more planning, and the more I can discuss and revise these plans with my supervisor, the better. One of the most important planning aspects for me was week-to-week planning, including a proper understanding of what the expectations were about me attending group or department events. This way I could properly structure my days around these meetings. Sometimes supervisors are not explicit about where they expect you to be when, but actually asking about this up front can save your relationship turning sour over time. In my case, we had a number of weekly meetings including a group discussion, journal club, and seminar, all of which my supervisor expected me to attend. The only issue was that this was a bit unspoken, at least in the beginning. As time went on, some members of the group would show up to fewer of these meetings. If nobody was bothered this would have been fine, but in reality it led to some tension between them and the various group leaders, and even between members of the department, especially when people would show up to group meetings only when it was their turn to present and benefit from everyone's time. I'm sure those people considered it a better use of their time to be elsewhere but the reality is that people, including the various group leaders, did have expectations about attendance and so it's always better to highlight these expectations before you, or others don't meet them.
Other planning points where it's best to set the expectation early are rarer events like attending conferences. I was very enthusiastic to attend conferences during my PhD but after some discussions my boss made it clear to me that since they're expensive, and until you have more to present you get less out of them, we could discuss one main conference a year to attend. This process also meant I had to make a bit of a case for why I should go, why I had picked that particular conference, and what I could present. I have seen people have this kind of rule without the discussion or justification surrounding it, meaning that the 'no' can cause some tension. Discussing the 'rules' ahead of time during my PhD really reduced the potential for a misunderstanding and avoided any real communication breakdowns.
Possibly the most critical thing to plan about with your boss is the general long-term plan for your PhD. One thing that helped me during my PhD was the required annual meeting with my supervisor where we discussed how things were going, and the aims and objectives for the next year. We also talked about how we were interacting, with the mutual understanding that you were free to, and should, say what we really thought. This helped a lot since it meant that from one year to the next I had a better sense for the objectives and expectations of the year for both of us and the group as a whole. It definitely made me feel a lot less lost and imposed a little structure on things. If your institution doesn't do this by default I strongly recommend trying to initiate it with your supervisor as it helps bring up topics that are sometimes difficult to discuss otherwise. It's a chance for a more personal discussion too about how you're doing which, depending on the type of boss you have, can otherwise be challenging. You might be thinking 'eugh I don't want a yearly discussion about that stuff, I'm winging it and it’s going great" - maybe if you don't have a structure yourself and are a bit free-form with the PhD you and your supervisor would benefit from this the most as ultimately you need to be on the same page and this type of accountability avoids things blowing up or whole breakdowns in communication in the last few months of your PhD, where you're already going to be the most stressed.
Publishing
Getting your work published is both important and stressful. I think having an idea of what to expect regarding publishing during your PhD is critical. Thinking about publishing during a PhD might be considered a privileged position (especially in places where the focus is on writing chapters not leaving with published work) but I think if you can try to publish you have two advantages in the long term 1) your work is out there and so you're building a public profile, and 2) if a paper is published that chapter can essentially be 'ticked off' for the writing part of your dissertation (in the best case this paper can be included as-is in your thesis and in other places you will need to re-shape it a bit, but ultimately an examiner has a hard time to be critical of a published bit of work making life easier for you). So what are the kinds of things you should discuss with your supervisor? Firstly, do they expect you to publish both in terms of the work being done and whether this is a requirement for actually finishing your PhD. For me defending was roughly contingent on having one paper published, one accepted, and one manuscript in a good state. Find out these expectations early on so you know what you're aiming for. Once you know these conditions you can start to discuss how you'll break up your work and package them into papers - even if they don't get submitted to a journal in your PhD these delimited chunks of work will constitute thesis chapters, again making your life easier down the road. These plans can of course (and will) be updated as you go and as your work yields results but thinking of the project in terms of papers/chapters helped me a lot, and there was a substantial amount of relief going into my last year with at least one part of it published.
Another aspect of publishing that should be discussed is authorship - who will be your co-authors on these papers. I have found this a continually frustrating aspect of academia, mostly due to the inconsistency and different ideas of what authorship really means. I won't go into a load of detail here (mostly to preserve my own sanity) but chatting with your supervisor about who will be on a paper even in the early stages of a project can help you get an idea for who has what responsibilities throughout the analysis and writing stages (e.g. if someone is on there as the taxonomic expert of your study system then they're obliged to help you with taxonomy questions you might have) and helps avoid any awkwardness later down the line (nobody likes doing 99% of the work and seeing names that you've never heard of before crop up on the manuscript a year down the line). On that note, supervisors, do better at explaining your authorship expectations and about the roles of each person who will be on the paper to the lead author (nobody likes do-nothing political tag-along authors). Additionally there are a whole other set of questions about the types of journals you'll pitch the paper at, open access or not, for profit or not, who will handle the actual submission, dealing with revisions, dealing with rejections, if there's a budget for publishing/who pays, and timelines for submission that should all be discussed once the discussion of what the paper will be has been had.
3) End
The end of a PhD can be a delicate time for the student-supervisor relationship, a breakup of sorts. Just like a break-up some supervisors can bring things to an end with grace, realising things have run their course and it has been good while it lasted, while others will end things kicking and screaming, even changing their personality drastically and adding pressure to what can already be an incredibly busy and stressful time. Why does this happen? From what I've seen with others I think there are a few reasons 1) supervisors become aware of the impact your loss will have on the productivity and dynamic of the group making them uneasy, 2) they are worried it will be hard to contact you about ongoing work (which in the worst case could halt completely) or to get information about work you already did (my experience has been that this response relates to personal experiences from supervisors' previous jobs), 3) at the end of your PhD the goals of your supervisor and your goals may start to diverge, with your focus being on finishing and submitting your thesis and theirs for getting the most science out of you. For this reason I think the end of a PhD, I'd say a year before the end of your contract or proposed hand-in date, is the most important time to sit down and have a proper chat about how things are going to play out. If you can, put down in writing what the expectations are, both on a scientific level (outlining the work to be done and the plan to achieve this) as well as your next steps and how your interactions will go on into the future. I wrote a whole article on my experience finishing a PhD (Finishing your PhD thesis is simple...) so here I'll just touch on two important student-supervisor talking points
Game plan and post PhD work
Discuss how the last year will go, outline what you plan on doing and get feedback on this plan. At this stage it's good to chat about the various aspects of your plan that could go wrong and decide on what you'll do in the event those things happen. For example, if you're waiting on sequencing data but aren't sure when it will arrive you could discuss things like - what is a chapter that you'll definitely be able to write under the time pressure or with data you already have in the event things go sideways. I really think you want to be a unified front with your supervisor in the last year and so making it clear what you can/can't do in this time is crucial. I've seen supervisors try to add whole new study sites and data in the last few months of a project and unfortunately people in this position feel like they can't say no. If you're a supervisor who does this because you're aiming for perfection at the expense of your student then stop! And if you're a student in this position you need to try to present your case for why you can't/won't be adding that data (although this is always an awful situation to be in since you want to reduce conflict this late in the process). While I never really experienced this I have seen it happen, and in this situation I think it's fair to say something along the lines of "my contract ends on _____ and the last time I will be paid is _____. This means I need to be done by _____ because by then I will be unemployed and I think the best way to meet this deadline for us both is to do _____, _____, and _____. If you need/want me to complete this work or add new data I would definitely be open to doing a short postdoc in the group until _____ but of course getting paid to cover living expenses etc. is essential". I think it's also fair at the end of your PhD to be relatively explicit about what you'll need from then by talking in terms of deadlines for bits of writing to be reviewed and discussed. Most supervisors will respond better to being asked "would you be okay to give me some feedback on chapter _ of my thesis if I send it to you by _____, and do you think you would be able to get that back to me by _____ so I can make the necessary changes?" rather than having thesis chapters emailed to them the night before it needs to be submitted.
Next steps
Reducing potential conflict at this point is also important because you will likely need to be on good terms with your supervisor(s) for many years to come. Hopefully this will be easy, and in many cases tension eases substantially once you defend, but it's good to discuss the need for things like reference letters while you're still in your PhD position. The last thing you want is to be applying for a job and having to send multiple chasing emails begging for your recommendation letter to be written. I think the desire for this kind of discussion should ideally come from both of you, with your supervisor demonstrating some mentorship by opening up a dialogue as to what you might want to do next and your options, a postdoc, fellowships, or other industry/non academic jobs. Although it's often hard to think about when you're in the depths of writing up, it's worth thinking about what you have liked/disliked about your PhD and I think coming to your supervisor with those in mind can help them discuss your options better. Another aspect of post PhD work your supervisor can help with is discussing potential people to work with, and ideally put you in touch. This helped me massively as I had the option to apply for a postdoc fellowship but had no idea where to start looking for people to work with. My supervisors both helped me narrow down a long list as well as giving advice on how to reach out to people to discuss this opportunity. They also both helped give me feedback on the fellowship which definitely put me in the best position to get it. On top of this, supervisors can, and should, help identify people to stay clear of - there are plenty of people like this around and it always helps to have someone with a substantially bigger network of academics to ask around before you commit to a postdoc or fellowship with someone who has a reputation.
That’s just about it, what I think are the key components of the student-supervisor relationship across the whole PhD distilled down into a (not so) short article. Next time, in the last instalment of this series I'll be talking about academia as a whole, how my impression of it changed through my PhD, and what I learned about trying to navigate it.
Comments
Post a Comment