Supervising the PhD: identifying common …...2020/02/20 · Supervising the PhD: identifying common mismatches in expectations between candidate and supervisor to improve research

1

SupervisingthePhD:identifyingcommonmismatchesinexpectationsbetween

candidateandsupervisortoimproveresearchtrainingoutcomes

AdamP.A.Cardilini1*†,AliceRisley2*andMarkF.Richardson3,4

*Co-firstauthors

1DeakinUniversity,Geelong,Australia,SchoolofLifeandEnvironmentalScience,VIC,Australia

2InstituteofEvolutionaryEcologyandConservationGenomics,UniversityofUlm,Albert-Einstein-

Allee1,89081,Ulm,Germany

3DeakinUniversity,Geelong,Australia,CentreforIntegrativeEcology,SchoolofLifeand

EnvironmentalSciences,WaurnPondsCampus,VIC,Australia

4DeakinUniversity,Geelong,Australia,DeakinGenomicsCentre,SchoolofLifeandEnvironmental

Sciences,BurwoodandWaurnPondsCampuses,VIC,Australia

†CorrespondingAuthor:[email protected]

AuthorORCID:APAC-0000-0002-1032-3466;AR-0000-0002-0731-2934;MFR-0000-0002-1650-

0064

Keywords:Researchtraining,PhDsupervision,PhDcandidate,PhDmentalwell-being,research

expectations

.CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licensepreprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. It is made available under aThe copyright holder for thisthis version posted February 23, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520doi: bioRxiv preprint

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

2

Abstract

TherelationshipbetweenaPhDcandidateandtheirsupervisorisinfluentialinnotonlysuccessful

candidatecompletion,butmaintainingcandidatesatisfactionandmentalhealth.Wequantified

potentialmismatchesbetweenthePhDcandidatesandsupervisorsexpectationsasapotential

mechanismthatfacilitatespoorcandidateexperiencesandresearchtrainingoutcomes.114PhD

candidatesand52supervisorsrankedtheimportanceofstudentattributesandoutcomesatthe

beginningandendofcandidature.Inrelationtospecificattributes,supervisorsindicatedthelevelof

guidancetheyexpectedtogivethecandidateandcandidatesindicatedthelevelofguidancethey

expectedtoreceive.Candidatesalsoreportonwhetherdifferentaspectsofcandidatureinfluenced

theirmentalwell-being.Weidentifieddifferencesbetweencandidatesandsupervisorsperceived

supervisorteachingresponsibilityandinfluencesonmentalwell-being.Ourresultsindicatethatthe

majorityofcandidatesweresatisfiedoverallwiththeirsupervision,andfindalignmentofmany

expectationsbetweenbothparties.Yet,wefindthatcandidateshavemuchhigherexpectationsof

achievingquantitativeoutcomesthansupervisors.Supervisorsbelievedtheygivemoreguidanceto

candidatesthancandidatesperceivetheyreceived,andsupervisorsoftenonlyprovidedguidance

whenthecandidateexplicitlyasked.Personalexpectationsandresearchprogresssignificantlyand

negativelyinfluencedover50%ofcandidate’smentalwell-being.Ourresultshighlightthe

importanceofcandidatesandsupervisorsexplicitlycommunicatingtheresponsibilitiesand

expectationsoftherolestheyplayinhelpingcandidatesdevelopresearchskills.Weprovidefour

suggestionstosupervisorsthatmaybeparticularlyeffectiveatincreasingcommunication,avoiding

potentialconflictandpromotingcandidatesuccessandwellbeing.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


3

Introduction

AnycandidatewilltellyoudoingaPhDishard.However,guidingaPhDcandidatethroughthe

bumpyprocesscanbejustastrickyforthesupervisor.Developingagoodrelationshipbetweenthe

candidateandsupervisorisoneofthemostimportantcomponentsofasuccessfulPhD.Research

hasconsistentlyshownthattherelationshipbetweenthecandidateandtheirsupervisorisoneof

themostimportantpredictorsofcandidatedissatisfaction(Ives&Rowley,2005;KovachClarketal.,

2009;Tompkinsetal.,2016),PhDdiscontinuation(Bair&Haworth,2004;Buckley&Hooley1,1988;

Golde,2000;Kiley,2011;Lovitts&Nelson,2000),anddepression(Pelusoetal.,2011).InAustralia,

20%ofcandidatesreportnotbeingsatisfiedwiththeirsupervision(McGaghetal.,2016),and20-

35%areestimatedtodropoutoftheirprogram(Jiranek,2010;McGaghetal.,2016).Similarly,

otherstudieshavefoundover30%ofPhDcandidatesareatriskofhavingordevelopingcommon

psychiatricdisorders(Levecqueetal.,2017;Pelusoetal.,2011).Thisequatestolarge-scalenegative

mentalhealthandcareerconsequencesacrossstudents,aswellasasignificantlossofresearch

output(Larivière,2011).Importantly,thesenegativeoutcomescannotbesolelyattributedtothe

candidate.Supervisorengagement,amongstotherfactorssuchasfacultysupport(Golde,2000),

havebeenincreasinglylinkedtocandidateresearchproductivity(Guetal.,2011),student

completionrates(Buckley&Hooley1,1988;Kiley,2011),andstudentmentalhealth(Levecqueet

al.,2017;Pelusoetal.,2011).Assuch,therehasbeenanincreasingemphasisontheimportanceof

supervisortraininginimprovingoutcomesforcandidates(Delamontetal.,2004;Halse,2011;Halse

&Bansel,2012),aswellascognitive-behaviouralcoachingforcandidates(Kearns,Gardiner,etal.,

2008).However,althoughsupervisortrainingemphasizestheimportanceofclearcommunicationof

expectationsbetweenbothparties(Delamontetal.,2004;Moxhametal.,2013),thereiscurrently

littlequantitativeunderstandingofhowcommonexpectationsareeitheralignedormismatched

withinAustralianinstitutionsandhowthesecanbeaddressed.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


4

Mismatchedexpectationsbetweencandidatesandsupervisorshavebeenshowntohaveanegative

effectoncandidatecompletionratesandtimeliness(Holbrooketal.,2014;McCormack,2004).Clear

communicationofexpectationsbetweencandidatesandsupervisorsisconsideredtobeparamount

tofosteringasuccessfulworkingrelationship(Delamontetal.,2004;Moxhametal.,2013).

However,expectationsarechallengingtoaddressandquantifybecausetheycoverahugearrayof

responsibilitiesandoutcomesthatarecriticaltoPhDcompletion(Mowbray&Halse,2010),and

thesebynecessitychangeovertime(e.g.supervisorexpectationsofthestudentwilldifferbetween

thebeginningofcandidatureandatthetimeofcompletion).Thereisalsoanincreasingdistinction

betweenexpectationsrevolvingaroundquantifiablestudentoutcomes(e.g.numberofpapers

publishedorgrantsattained)andqualitativeoutcomes(e.g.criticalthinkingortechnicalskills

specifictothefield),andthesemaydifferbetweencandidateandsupervisoriftheinstitutiondoes

notrequireaPhDbypublication(Lindénetal.,2013;Vilkinas,2008).Moreover,theextenttowhich

thesupervisorisexpectedtoguidethecandidateindevelopingthenecessarycriticalskillsto

completeaPhDandpreparethecandidateforacareerintheirchosenfieldmaybeanothersource

ofconflict.Critically,supervisorsareincreasinglytimedeficientandjugglingmanyresponsibilities

andobligations,givingthemlittlefreedomtodedicatetimetothechallengesthatindividual

candidatesmayface.Althoughthedynamicsofsuchrelationshipsareuniquetothecandidateand

supervisorinquestion,trendsincandidateandsupervisorexpectationsmayexistthatallow

supervisorstofocuseffortsoncertainareasinordertopromotemoreeffectivecommunication

betweenthetwo.

Inthisstudy,weaimedtoidentifytheimportanceofcommonexpectationssurroundingthe

candidate–supervisorrelationship.Byidentifyingexpectationsmisalignedincandidatesand

supervisors,wecanunderstandwhereeffortsshouldbedirectedtoavoidconflictandpromote

candidatesuccess.114PhDcandidatesand52supervisorsansweredaquestionnairethatasked

themtorankcommonexpectationsandoutcomesofstudentsbyimportanceforboththebeginning

andendofcandidature.Inaddition,wealsoassessedthelevelofguidanceexpectedtobegivento


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


5

thestudentbythesupervisorforeachoutcome,inordertoidentifydiscrepanciesbetweenhow

studentsandsupervisorsperceivesupervisorresponsibility.Wethencomparedanswersbetween

studentsandsupervisorsforbothanalysestoidentifywherethebiggestdiscrepanciesin

expectationslay.Finally,weassessedwhethersupervisorguidancewasperceivedtobelinkedto

studentwell-being,inordertoassessanynegativeimpactsofsupervisiononstudentmentalhealth.

Wesummarisetheresultsbyprovidingfoursuggestionstosupervisorsthatmaybeparticularly

effectiveatincreasingcommunication,avoidingconflictandpromotingcandidatesuccess.

Methods

Thesurvey

AsurveywasdevelopedtodeterminethedifferenceinPhDcandidateandsupervisorexpectations

ofthecandidates’attributesandsupervisorguidance(supplementaryfile).Thefirstquestionhad

participantsself-identifyasaPhDsupervisor,PhDcandidate,recentlygraduatedPhD(<2yr)ora

discontinuedcandidate.Candidatesandsupervisorsweregivenadifferentsurveysettocomplete.

Thequestionsaskedineachsurveysetwereequivalent,butthequestionswerewrittenforthe

perspectiveofeachgroup(seesupplementaryfile).Forexample,bothcandidatesandsupervisors

receivedthefollowingequivalentquestionrespectively,‘PleaserankthequalityofthePhD

supervisionyoureceived’or‘Inyouropinion,rankthequalityofthePhDsupervisionyouprovide’.

Eachsurveysetincludedfivedemographicquestionsandsixquestionsregardingcandidate

attributes,supervisorguidanceandthequalityofsupervision.Thecandidatesurveysetincluded

threeprivatequestions,tworelatingtocandidatementalwell-beingduringcandidatureandoneon

thelikelihoodofpursuingacareerinresearchacademia.

Twoquestionswereaskedtodeterminethecandidateattributesthatweremostimportantto

candidatesandsupervisors.Participantswereaskedtoselectandrankthetopfiveattributesofa

candidatestartingaPhDandthetopfiveattributesoroutcomesofacandidateatthetimeofthesis

submission(seesupplementaryfileforattributeandoutcomeoptionssets).Twoquestionswere


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


6

askedtodeterminetheattributesthatasupervisorhasthemostresponsibilityforhelpinga

candidatedevelopduringaPhD.Thefirstsupervisorresponsibilitiesquestionrequiredparticipants

toselectandrankthetopthreeattributesthatasupervisorismostresponsibleforhelpinga

candidatedevelopduringtheirPhD(seesupplementarymaterialforattributeoptions).Thesecond

questionaskedcandidatesandsupervisorstoindicatethelevelofguidancetheyrespectively

received,orprovideduringcandidatureinrelationtoeachattribute.Thelevelofguidancewas

indicatedonafourpointscaleincluding,‘none’,‘onlywhenasked’,‘whenseenasneeded’and‘at

everyopportunity’.Todeterminethemismatchbetweencandidateandsupervisorexperienceof

PhDsupervision,candidatesandsupervisorswereaskedtoindicatedthequalityofsupervisionthey

respectivelyreceivedorprovidedduringcandidature.

PhDcandidateswereaskedtwoquestionsregardingtheirmentalwell-beingduringcandidature.The

firstquestionaskedcandidatestoindicatewhetherexperiencesduringtheircandidaturehad

negativelyaffectedtheirmentalwell-being.Responseswereindicatedonafive-pointscalefrom

stronglydisagreetostronglyagree.Thesecondquestionaskedcandidatestoindicatehow

significantlyalongafive-pointscalefivedifferentaspectsofcandidaturenegativelyinfluencedtheir

mentalwell-being.Thefiveaspectsofcandidaturethatwereaskedaboutwere,‘supervisor

relationship’,‘researchenvironment’,‘researchprogress’,‘personalexpectations’,and‘supervisor

expectations’.Theoptionsforthefive-pointscaleincluded,notatallsignificantlytovery

significantly.Finally,candidatesandsupervisorswereaskedtoratethequalityofthesupervision

theyhadreceived/providedalonga5pointscaleincludingoptionsfromverylowtoveryhigh.

Recruitment

Anemailinvitingpeopletoparticipateinthesurvey,whichincludedalinktothesurvey,wassentto

PhDcandidatesandsupervisorsinScienceandHealthfacultiesatDeakinUniversity,anAustralian

highereducationinstitution.SchoolsthatwereexpectedtohavealargenumberofPhDcandidates


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


7

completingresearchthesisweretargeted,includinglifesciences,medicineandpsychology.The

surveywasopenedforcompletionfrom5thAugust2016to14thNovember2016.

Analysis

Questionresponseswhereparticipantsrankedasubsetofattributescreatedapartiallyranked

dataset.Eachattributethatwasrankedbyaparticipantwasgivenanumericalvalueequivalenttoits

rank,e.g.rank1=1,rank2=2,etc.Ifparticipantsrankedthesameattributetwiceinasingle

questionthesecondinstanceoftheattributewasreplacedwith‘NA’.Tocalculatetherankofall

attributes,unrankedattributevaluesmustbefilledinthedatamatrix.Wepopulatedunfilled

attributevalueswiththeaverageofthemeanunrankedvaluepossibilities,e.g.unranked

possibilities6-16haveameanof11.Weusedthe‘rank’functioninRstatisticalpackage‘base’

package(RCoreTeam,2017)torankeachattribute.Anytiedattributesweresettothemaximum

numberofthosetiedattributes.Wecalculatedseparaterankvaluesforcandidateandsupervisor

subsetsandscaledvaluestoallowforcomparison(‘scale()’,RCoreTeam,2017).

Wetestedwhethertherewasasignificantdifferenceintheaverageranksetsbetweencandidates

andsupervisorsusingaKendallrankcorrelation,tau,fromthe‘Kendall’packageinR(McLeod,

2011).Correlationp-values≤0.05wereconsideredsignificant.Afterscaling,rankvaluescouldbe

negativeorpositive.Tomakeplotcomparisonseasiertointerprettheminimumscaledrankvalue

wasaddedtoeachrankscore,thismadetheminimumrankvalueequal‘0’andallothervalues

positive.Thehighestscaledrankvaluecorrespondstothetoprankingoption.

WeusedGeneralisedLinearModels(GLM)todeterminedifferencesbetweenthelevelsofguidance

candidatesandsupervisorsindicatedthattheyreceived/provided.Wereducedthefourguidance

optionresponsesintotwovaluesforanalysis;‘none’and‘onlywhenasked’responsesweregrouped

aspassiveguidanceandgivenavalueof0,while‘whenseenasneeded’and‘ateveryopportunity’

weregroupedasactiveguidanceandgivenavalueof1.Thiscreatedabinarydatasetforanalysis.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


8

TheGLMincludedthebinaryguidanceresponseastheresponsevariablewithcandidate/supervisor

statusasthepredictorvariable.Themodelspecifiedabinomialdistribution.

WeusedKendallnon-parametrictests(‘cor.test’,RCoreTeam,2017)todeterminecorrelations

betweencandidatesreportedsupervisorquality,withexperiencesandimpactsofnegativewell-

beingandcareeraspirations.Tauandp-valuesarereported.WeusedWilcoxnon-parametrictests

(‘wilcox.test’,RCoreTeam,2017)toanalysethegenderdifferencesinreportedsupervisionquality,

well-beingmeasuresandcareeraspirations.

p-valueswereFDRcorrectedforeachsetoftests(Benjamini&Hochberg,1995)andFDRcorrected

p-values<0.05wereconsideredsignificant.

Results

166academicsansweredthesurveyonPhDexpectations.Ofthese,55%werecurrentPhD

candidates,31%weresupervisors,and13%wererecentgraduates,whileonepersonwasa

discontinuedcandidate(Table1).Wefoundasignificantdifferencebetweenhowcandidatesand

supervisorsrankedtheimportanceofattributesinallthreeofthefollowingtests;1)therankof

attributescandidatesareexpectedtohaveatthebeginning,and2)theendofcandidature,and3)

therankofattributessupervisorsareexpectedtoprovideguidanceon(Table2).

Beginningofcandidature

Expectationsofbothcandidatesandsupervisorswerefairlywellalignedatthebeginningof

candidature,withbothgroupsplacinghighimportanceoncandidatemotivation,enthusiasm,and

writtencommunication(Fig.1a).However,candidatesplacedmuchhigherimportanceongood

academicgradesthansupervisors,whilstsupervisorsplacedmuchhigherimportanceonthe

candidate’sabilitytothinkcriticallythandidthecandidatesthemselves.Previouspublications,

industryexperience,self-confidence,andgoodverbalcommunicationwereallmoreimportantfor

candidatesthantheyweretosupervisorsatthebeginningofcandidature.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


9

Endofcandidature

Overall,candidateshadmuchhigherexpectationsofachievingquantitativeoutcomesbytheendof

candidaturethansupervisors,withcandidatesplacinghighimportanceonpublishingatleastfour

papers,andfairlyhighimportanceonwinningawardsandgrants(Fig.1b).Incontrast,supervisors

expectedthecandidatetopublishjustoneortwoarticlesbytheendofcandidature,andplacedlow

importanceonwinningawardsandgrants.Bothgroupsplacedhighimportanceondiscipline

knowledge,criticalthinkingskillsandwrittencommunication,althoughsupervisorsplacedallthese

qualitativeoutcomeshigherinimportancethanthecandidatesthemselves.

Responsibilitytoprovideguidance

Bothcandidatesandsupervisorsconsideredthatsupervisorshaveanimportantresponsibilityto

provideguidancedevelopingthecandidate’swrittencommunicationskills,criticalthinkingskillsand

disciplineknowledge.Butcandidatesplacethehighestimportanceondevelopingwritten

communicationskills,whilesupervisorsoncriticalthinking(Fig.2).However,candidatesconsidered

thatsupervisorsshouldhaveaslightlystrongerroleinencouragingordevelopingtheiracademic

independence,motivationandteamworkskills.

Guidancegiven/received

Acrossattributes,candidatesgenerallyconsideredtheywerebeinggivenlessguidancethan

indicatedbythesupervisor(Table3).Forwrittencommunication,criticalthinking,anddiscipline

knowledge(thethreeattributesidentifiedbythecandidatesasbeingthemostimportanttoreceive

supervisorguidanceon),candidatesconsideredtheygotnoguidanceoronlyreceivedguidanceif

theydirectlyaskedin23%,20%and29%ofcases,respectively,whilstsupervisorsconsideredthis

wasalmostneverthecase(2%,0%and12%respectively)(Fig.3).Overall,candidatesconsidered

theyreceivedguidanceateveryopportunityorwhentheirsupervisorobservedtheyneededitin

64%ofcases,whistsupervisorsperceivedtheyweregivingthislevelofguidancein82%ofcases.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


10

Qualityofsupervision,mentalwell-being

Candidatesreportedreceiving‘high’(34.5%)or‘veryhigh’(38.1%)qualityPhDsupervision,while

7.1%reportedreceiving‘verylow’qualitysupervision,4%‘low’and15.9%‘average’.Nosupervisor

reportedproviding‘low’or‘verylow’qualitysupervision,18%reported‘average’,68%‘high’and

14%‘veryhigh’.

Morethan35%ofcandidatesreportedthatexperiencesduringtheirPhDhadnegativelyimpacted

theiroverallwell-beinginasignificantway(Fig.4).Candidatesindicatedthattheirmentalwell-being

wassignificantlyinfluencedinanegativewayfrompersonalexpectations(54%),researchprogress

(53%),researchenvironment(32%),supervisorexpectations(31%)andrelationshipwithsupervisor

(29%)(Table4).

Candidateswhoreportedlowersupervisionqualitywerealsomorelikelytoreportexperiencing

higherlevelsofnegativewell-being,whereashigherqualitysupervisionwasrelatedtomorepositive

researchcareeraspirations(Table4).Femalecandidatesreportedreceivinghigherquality

supervisionthanmalecandidates(Table5),yetfemalecandidatesreportedhigherlevelsofnegative

well-beingcomparedtomalecandidates,withsupervisorrelationshipandsupervisorexpectations

beingahighersourceofnegativewell-beinginparticularthanreportedbymales(Table5).

Discussion

InthisstudyweexploredhowtheexpectationsofPhDcandidatesandsupervisorsdifferinrespect

tocandidatePhDgoalsandsupervisorguidance,withanaimtopromoteeffectivesupervisory

strategiesthatincreaseunderstandingandcollaborationbetweencandidateandsupervisor.Our

resultssuggestthatthemajorityofcandidates(72.6%)feltthattheyreceivedbetterthanaverage

supervisionquality,andindeedthereweremanyexpectationsthatareinalignmentbetweenboth

parties.Forexample,atthebeginningofcandidature,bothconsideredthatcandidatemotivation,

enthusiasmforthefieldandacertaindegreeofindependenceareimportantdriversforcandidate

success.However,11.1%ofcandidatesreportedreceivinglowerthanaveragesupervision,whichis


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


11

reflectedbysimilarstudiesinAustralianuniversities(Heath,2002;McGaghetal.,2016).This

dissatisfactionmaybedrivenbyimportantdifferencesinexpectationsthatwereobservedacross

respondents.Inparticular,supervisorsstronglyconsideredthatcandidatesshoulddemonstrate

goodcriticalthinkingskillsfromthestartofcandidature.However,candidatesconsideredthisless

important,insteadbelievingthatgoodacademicgradeswereamoresignificantdemonstrationof

theirabilitytodoaPhD,despitelittleevidenceforthis(Bair&Haworth,2004).Thismayleadto

conflictifsupervisorsexpectcandidatestodemonstratecriticalthinkingwhencandidatesareunsure

ofwhatthisentails(forexample,criticalthinkingmaybeconfusedwith‘booksmart’),ordonot

realisethatthisiswhattheirsupervisorexpectsfromthem.Inthiscase,reflectionbythesupervisor

regarding:i)whetherthisisarealisticorfairexpectationtohaveforanewcandidate(Ellisetal.,

2015),ii)howbesttodeveloptheircriticalthinkingskills(e.g.givingthemrelevantarticlestoreview

andcritique),andiii)effectivecommunicationtoensurethatthecandidateisawarethatthisisan

importantskilltodevelop,mayallbeusefulatavoidingmisunderstandingsandconflictsdownthe

line.

Outcomesattheendofcandidature

Bytheendofcandidature,bothcandidatesandsupervisorsagreedthatthecandidateshould

demonstrategoodcriticalthinkingskills,ahighlevelofdisciplineknowledgeandexcelatwritten

communication.However,candidateshadfarhigherexpectationssurroundingthenumberof

publicationstheywouldachieve,andplacedhigherimportanceonwinningawardsandgrantsthan

didsupervisors.Thismayreflectdifferencesinthinkingbetweencandidatesandsupervisors

regardingultimategoalsofthePhDcandidature.Supervisorsmaybeprimarilyconcernedwith

buildingtherequisiteskillsetrequiredforthecandidatetobesuccessfulinacademiaorindustry

(Gilbertetal.,2004),withtheassumptionthatpublishedpapers(andgrants)willbeanimportant

consequenceoftheseskills(p171;Delamontetal.,2004).Conversely,candidatesmaybemore

focussedonquantitativeoutcomesfromtheirPhDthatprovideavaluableskillsetforfuturejobs

(Roach&Sauermann,2010),evenattheexpenseofqualitativeskills.Forexample,whencandidates


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


12

aregivenalotofhelpinordertopublishquickly,andtherebydonotfullydevelopthewritten

communicationskillsthemselves.Althoughthispotentialconflictiswellknownanddiscussed

amongstacademics,withsomeinstitutionsnowpromotingPhDsbypublicationtoavoidthisconflict

(Jackson,2013),suchpotentiallyminordifferencesinthinkingcanhaveprofoundnegative

consequencesforthecandidate.Atworst,thecandidatemayperceivethatthesupervisorisnot

workingintheirbestinterestsiftheyareworkingtowardsdifferentgoals.Althoughthecomplexity

ofthisscenarioincreaseswhensupervisorshavevestedinterestsincandidatesuccess(MacDonald&

Williams-Jones,2009),itisstilllikelythatinvestedsupervisorsstillconceptuallyprioritizecandidate

skillasanecessarymechanismtowardspublication,ratherthanseepublicationsastheoverallgoal

ofthePhD.Assuch,supervisorsshouldbeexplicitlyawareofwhatthecandidatewishestoachieve

duringtheirPhD,andguidethemtowardsachievablegoalsthatbothpromotesuccessintheir

desiredcareerandmeettherequirementsofthesupervisorandtheinstitution.Critically,

communicatingthatbothcandidateandsupervisorareaimingtowardsthesamespecificgoalswill

avoidconflictsneartheendofcandidature.

Supervisorguidance

Bothcandidatesandsupervisorsagreedthatsupervisorshaveastrongresponsibilitytogive

guidanceandfeedbackoncriticalthinking,writtencommunication,andrelevantdiscipline

knowledge.Interestingly,supervisorsconsideredtheirresponsibilitytoguidecriticalthinkingand

problemsolvinggreaterthanwasexpectedbycandidates.Similartootherstudies,candidates

insteadexpectedmoreguidanceondevelopingtheiracademicindependence,theircollaboration

skills,andmaintainingmotivation(Mowbray&Halse,2010).Yet,supervisorsconsideredtheyhad

littleornoresponsibilityinguidingtheseless‘academic’attributes(Craswell,2007).Thismayhave

disproportionallynegativeeffectsonthecandidate,withstudiesconsistentlyshowingsignificant

emotionalcostswhenindependenceislow(DeLangeetal.,2004;Levecqueetal.,2017;Vanroelen

etal.,2009),andwhenthereislittlesocialorcollaborativeintegrationwithinanacademicgroupor

institution(Gardner,2009;Golde,2000;KovachClarketal.,2009;Pyhältöetal.,2009),bothof


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


13

whichdecreasemotivation(Gagné&Deci,2005;Mason,2012).Critically,attributessuchas

independence,self-confidence,collaborationskills,andsustainedmotivationareallcrucial

attributesforasuccessfulPhDandcareer(Mowbray&Halse,2010;Wuchtyetal.,2007),andare

qualitiesthatmostmustlearnanddevelopviamentoring,regularinteractionwiththeirresearch

group,andcarefulself-reflection.Activelysupportingandguidingthecandidatetoincreasetheir

autonomyandcollaboratewithothers(eitherwithintheresearchgrouporwithoutside

collaborators)islikelytohavebeneficialeffectsoncandidatemotivationandproductivity(Larivière,

2011),whilsthelpingthemdevelopindependentideasandteamworkskills(Sinclairetal.,2014).

Supervisorsmaythereforeincreasethechancesofcandidatesatisfactionandsuccessbyactively

encouragingthecandidatetoreflectonhowtheycandevelopthesecrucialqualities.

Candidatemental-well-being

WeshowthatcandidaturehasnegativelyinfluencedoverathirdofPhDcandidates’surveyed

mentalwell-being,thisisinlinewithfindingselsewhere(Evansetal.,2018;Levecqueetal.,2017).

Ourfindingsthatpersonalexpectations,researchprogress,researchenvironmentandsupervision

impactarelativelylargeproportionofcandidatesalsoechoespreviouslypublishedword(Barryet

al.,2018;Evansetal.,2018).Relationshipbetweencandidateandsupervisorcomesuptimeand

againasasignificantcontributortonegativewell-being.Though,asshownhere,thedynamicsof

howthatrelationshipimpactswell-beingissometimescomplicated.Forinstance,despiteonaverage

femalecandidatesself-reportinghigherlevelsofsupervisionqualitythanmalecandidates,

supervisorexpectationsandrelationshiphadagreaternegativeimpactontheirwell-being.There

areseveralpossiblyexplanationsforthisdynamicthatwarrantsfurtherinvestigation.

Effectivecommunicationandhiddenpowerdynamics

Ourresultssuggestthatthereisadisparitybetweenhowmuchguidancesupervisorsthinktheyare

givingtothecandidate,andhowmuchcandidatesperceivetheyarereceiving.Inparticular,

candidatesfelttheyreceivednoguidanceatallin20%ofcases,whilstthiswasveryrareamongst


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


14

supervisors(3%).Worryingly,over20%ofcandidatesreportlittleguidance(noneoronlyifasked)

forcriticalthinking,writtencommunicationanddisciplineknowledge,despitebothparties

identifyingthesesubjectsasimportantareasforsupervisorguidance.Thisdisparityislikelytostem

fromthefactthatsupervisorsaretimedeficientandjugglemultipleobligations,whilstcandidatesin

contrastoftenfocusalmostsolelyonobligationssurroundingtheirPhD.Consequently,supervisors

mayfeelthattheyonlyhavetimetogiveguidanceifthecandidatespecificallyasksforitor

demonstratesthatitisneeded.Thismaybeperceivednegativelybythecandidate,whomay

interpretthesituationasthesupervisornotmeetingtheirsupervisoryobligations.Onecommon

suggestiontominimisethechancesofthisconflictistospendtimediscussingandoutliningthe

numerousseparateresponsibilitiesandexpectationsofbothcandidateandsupervisor(Moxhamet

al.,2013).Althoughtimeconsumingandrequiringagreatdealofthought,thisisanincredibly

worthwhileinvestmentonbothsides.Moreover,thereareanumberofstrategiesthatcanhelp

candidatesself-reflectandbemoreproductive(Kearns,Forbes,etal.,2008;Kearns,Gardiner,etal.,

2008),andsupervisorsshouldpointstudentstowardstheseresourceswhentheyfeeltheyarenot

abletomeettheneedsofthecandidate.

However,inadditiontothis,supervisorsshouldbeexplicitlyawareofpowerdynamicsandits

consequencesforcandidatedevelopmentandengagement(Grant,2003;Manathunga,2007).An

inherentdiscrepancyexistsinthemajorassumptionsrelatingtoacademicsupervision:firstisthe

assumptionthatbothpartiesareautonomousandrational,andthereforeonequaltermstodebate

anddiscussthedirectionofthecandidate.Thesecondassumptionisthatthesupervisorisawise

andknowingauthoritythatalsoplaystheroleofexaminer,andthatthestudentisawillingdisciple

inneedofguidance(Grant,2003;Johnsonetal.,2000;Manathunga,2007).Theseassumptionsare

inherentlyinconflictwitheachother,becauseinthefirstscenariobothpartiesareequals,whilstin

thesecondadistinctpowerimbalanceexists.Thisdiscrepancyislikelytoleadtoconflictswhen

supervisorsexpectcandidates(asrationalequals)tobringupproblemstheymaybeexperiencing,

whilstcandidatesarelikelytobesubmissiveordeferentialtotheauthorityofthesupervisor,and


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


15

mayfeelthatdisagreeingoraskingforhelpisinappropriateorwillcauseconflict.Assuch,

supervisorsshouldbeawarethatpowerdynamicsplayanimportantroleinmediatingcandidate

behaviour,andthatthismaydiscouragecandidatesfromactivelypursuingautonomyor,conversely,

askingforhelpifrequired(e.g.Diamandis,2017).Althoughitischallengingforsupervisorstowalk

thelinebetweengivingtoolittleguidance(so-calledlaissez-fairesupervision)andtoomuch

(autocraticsupervision)(Delamontetal.,1998;Deuchar,2008;Gardner,2008;VanVugtetal.,2004),

awarenessthatcandidatesmayalsobeconflictedbetweendutifullyfollowingadvice/ordersand

demonstratingacademicindependencemayhelpresolvetherootofsuchconflictswhentheyarise.

Thisconflictmaybeavoidedbyconsistentlyapplyingademocraticleadershipstyle(or‘participative’

leadership),wherebycandidatesareencouragedtotakeamoreparticipativeroleinthedecision

makingprocessfromthestartofcandidature.Ademocraticleadershipstylehasbeenconsistently

showntobethemosteffectivestyleofleadershiptoincreaseperformanceandsatisfactionamongst

groupmembers(Eaglyetal.,2003;Foelsetal.,2000;VanVugtetal.,2004),andallowsthe

candidatetoslowlygrowtheirconfidenceintheirownautonomywithinasupportiveframework.

Summary

ThisstudyattemptstoidentifyconflictingexpectationsbetweenPhDcandidatesandsupervisors

thatarelikelytoleadtoconflict,allowingsupervisorstofocuseffortsonkeyareastoencouragea

successfulworkingrelationship.Ourresultscanbesummarisedbythreesuggestionstosupervisors

thatmayacttoreduceconflictandpromotepositiveoutcomesforbothcandidateandsupervisor:

1. Spendtimeearlyonincandidaturetodiscusstheimportanceof,andaligneachother’s

expectations.Forexample,supervisorsshouldassiststudentsindevelopingcriticalthinking

skillsfromtheoutset,asourresultssuggestthatcandidatesarenotawareof,ordonot

placethesamelevelofimportanceonitassupervisorsdoearlyonintheircandidature.

2. Supervisorsandcandidatesshouldagreetoachievablegoalsthattheyworktowards.

Theseshouldincludebothqualitative(skillsetsthecandidateshouldlearn)andquantitative


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


16

(numberofpapersorgrantstobewon)outcome.Althoughthesedonotneedtobeoverly

specificandmayevolveovertime,thiscommunicatestothecandidatethattheyareboth

workingtowardsthesamesetofgoals.

3. Supervisorsshouldplayastrongerroleinguidingthedevelopmentofcandidateacademic

independenceandcollaborationskills.BotharecriticaltoasuccessfulPhDandcareer.

Supervisorsmayfindthatbroadeningthescopeoftheirsupervisoryroletoactivelyguide

thecandidateindevelopingthesequalitieswillhelpthecandidatemaintainmotivationand

satisfactionoverthecourseoftheirPhD,andleadtomoreproductiveandcollaborative

researchbythecandidate.

4. Maintaineffectivecommunicationanddialoguethroughout.Supervisorsandstudents

shouldagreeonacommunicationstylethatbestfitsboththeirneeds,andregularly

evaluateanddiscusstheircommunicationseffectiveness.

Wefoundthatsupervisorsconsideredthattheygivemoreguidancethancandidatesperceivedthey

receive,andthatsupervisorsoftenonlyprovidedguidancewhenthecandidateasks.Wesuggest

thatcandidatesandsupervisorsexplicitlycommunicatetheirseparateresponsibilitiesand

expectationsregardingthespectrumofskillsneededtosuccessfullycompletelyaPhD.Inaddition,

supervisorsmustbecognisantofinherentpowerdynamicsinthestudent-supervisorrelationship,in

ordertounderstandandremediatecommonmisalignmentofexpectations/goalsthatcouldleadto

dissatisfactionandpotentialconflict.Applyingademocraticleadershipstylefromtheoutsetof

candidaturemayhelpdecreasetheeffectsofthispowerimbalance.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


17

References

A.I.McLeod.(2011).Kendall:KendallrankcorrelationandMann-Kendalltrendtest.https://CRAN.R-

project.org/package=Kendall

Bair,C.R.,&Haworth,J.G.(2004).Doctoralstudentattritionandpersistence:Ameta-synthesisof

research.InHighereducation:Handbookoftheoryandresearch(pp.481–534).Springer.

Barry,K.M.,Woods,M.,Warnecke,E.,Stirling,C.,&Martin,A.(2018).Psychologicalhealthof

doctoralcandidates,study-relatedchallengesandperceivedperformance.HigherEducation

Research&Development,37(3),468–483.https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1425979

Benjamini,Y.,&Hochberg,Y.(1995).ControllingtheFalseDiscoveryRate:APracticalandPowerful

ApproachtoMultipleTesting.JournaloftheRoyalStatisticalSociety.SeriesB

(Methodological),57(1),289–300.JSTOR.

Buckley,P.J.,&Hooley1,G.J.(1988).Thenon-completionofdoctoralresearchinmanagement:

symptoms,causesandcures.EducationalResearch,30(2),110–120.

Craswell,G.(2007).Deconstructingtheskillstrainingdebateindoctoraleducation.HigherEducation

Research&Development,26(4),377–391.

DeLange,A.H.,Taris,T.W.,Kompier,M.A.J.,Houtman,I.L.D.,&Bongers,P.M.(2004).Work

characteristicsandpsychologicalwell-being.Testingnormal,reversedandreciprocal

relationshipswithinthe4-waveSMASHstudy.

Delamont,S.,Atkinson,P.,&Parry,O.(2004).Supervisingthedoctorate.McGraw-HillEducation

(UK).

Delamont,S.,Parry,O.,&Atkinson,P.(1998).Creatingadelicatebalance:thedoctoralsupervisor’s

dilemmas.TeachinginHigherEducation,3(2),157–172.

Deuchar,R.(2008).Facilitator,directororcriticalfriend?:Contradictionandcongruenceindoctoral

supervisionstyles.TeachinginHigherEducation,13(4),489–500.

Diamandis,E.(2017).Agrowingphobia.Nature,544(7648),129–129.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


18

Eagly,A.H.,Johannesen-Schmidt,M.C.,&VanEngen,M.L.(2003).Transformational,transactional,

andlaissez-faireleadershipstyles:ameta-analysiscomparingwomenandmen.American

PsychologicalAssociation.

Ellis,A.M.,Bauer,T.N.,Mansfield,L.R.,Erdogan,B.,Truxillo,D.M.,&Simon,L.S.(2015).

NavigatingUnchartedWatersNewcomerSocializationThroughtheLensofStressTheory.

JournalofManagement,41(1),203–235.

Evans,T.M.,Bira,L.,Gastelum,J.B.,Weiss,L.T.,&Vanderford,N.L.(2018).Evidenceforamental

healthcrisisingraduateeducation.NatureBiotechnology,36(3),282–284.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4089

Foels,R.,Driskell,J.E.,Mullen,B.,&Salas,E.(2000).Theeffectsofdemocraticleadershipongroup

membersatisfactionanintegration.SmallGroupResearch,31(6),676–701.

Gagné,M.,&Deci,E.L.(2005).Self-determinationtheoryandworkmotivation.Journalof

OrganizationalBehavior,26(4),331–362.

Gardner,S.K.(2008).“What’stoomuchandwhat’stoolittle?”:Theprocessofbecomingan

independentresearcherindoctoraleducation.TheJournalofHigherEducation,79(3),326–

350.

Gardner,S.K.(2009).Conceptualizingsuccessindoctoraleducation:Perspectivesoffacultyinseven

disciplines.TheReviewofHigherEducation,32(3),383–406.

Gilbert,R.,Balatti,J.,Turner,P.,&Whitehouse,H.(2004).Thegenericskillsdebateinresearch

higherdegrees.HigherEducationResearch&Development,23(3),375–388.

Golde,C.M.(2000).ShouldIstayorshouldIgo?Studentdescriptionsofthedoctoralattrition

process.TheReviewofHigherEducation,23(2),199–227.

Grant,B.(2003).Mappingthepleasuresandrisksofsupervision.Discourse:StudiesintheCultural

PoliticsofEducation,24(2),175–190.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


19

Gu,J.,Lin,Y.,Vogel,D.,&Tian,W.(2011).Whatarethemajorimpactfactorsonresearch

performanceofyoungdoctorateholdersinscienceinChina:aUSTCsurvey.Higher

Education,62(4),483–502.

Halse,C.(2011).‘Becomingasupervisor’:theimpactofdoctoralsupervisiononsupervisors’

learning.StudiesinHigherEducation,36(5),557–570.

Halse,C.,&Bansel,P.(2012).Thelearningalliance:ethicsindoctoralsupervision.OxfordReviewof

Education,38(4),377–392.

Heath,T.(2002).AquantitativeanalysisofPhDstudents’viewsofsupervision.HigherEducation

Research&Development,21(1),41–53.

Holbrook,A.,Shaw,K.,Scevak,J.,Bourke,S.,Cantwell,R.,&Budd,J.(2014).PhDcandidate

expectations:Exploringmismatchwithexperience.InternationalJournalofDoctoralStudies,

9,329–346.

Ives,G.,&Rowley,G.(2005).Supervisorselectionorallocationandcontinuityofsupervision:Ph.D.

students’progressandoutcomes.StudiesinHigherEducation,30(5),535–555.

Jackson,D.(2013).CompletingaPhDbypublication:AreviewofAustralianpolicyandimplications

forpractice.HigherEducationResearch&Development,32(3),355–368.

Jiranek,V.(2010).Potentialpredictorsoftimelycompletionamongdissertationresearchstudentsat

anAustralianfacultyofsciences.InternationalJournalofDoctoralStudies,5(1),1–13.

Johnson,L.,Lee,A.,&Green,B.(2000).ThePhDandtheautonomousself:Gender,rationalityand

postgraduatepedagogy.StudiesinHigherEducation,25(2),135–147.

Kearns,H.,Forbes,A.,Gardiner,M.,&Marshall,K.(2008).WhenaHighDistinctionIsn’tGood

Enough:AReviewofPerfectionismandSelf-Handicapping.AustralianEducational

Researcher,35(3),21–36.

Kearns,H.,Gardiner,M.,&Marshall,K.(2008).InnovationinPhDcompletion:Thehardyshall

succeed(andbehappy!).HigherEducationResearch&Development,27(1),77–89.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


20

Kiley,M.(2011).Developmentsinresearchsupervisortraining:causesandresponses.Studiesin

HigherEducation,36(5),585–599.

KovachClark,H.,Murdock,N.L.,&Koetting,K.(2009).PredictingBurnoutandCareerChoice

SatisfactioninCounselingPsychologyGraduateStudents.TheCounselingPsychologist,37(4),

580–606.https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008319985

Larivière,V.(2011).Ontheshouldersofstudents?ThecontributionofPhDstudentstothe

advancementofknowledge.Scientometrics,90(2),463–481.

Levecque,K.,Anseel,F.,DeBeuckelaer,A.,VanderHeyden,J.,&Gisle,L.(2017).Workorganization

andmentalhealthproblemsinPhDstudents.ResearchPolicy,46(4),868–879.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

Lindén,J.,Ohlin,M.,&Brodin,E.M.(2013).Mentorship,supervisionandlearningexperienceinPhD

education.StudiesinHigherEducation,38(5),639–662.

Lovitts,B.E.,&Nelson,C.(2000).Thehiddencrisisingraduateeducation:AttritionfromPh.D.

programs.Academe,86(6),44.

MacDonald,C.,&Williams-Jones,B.(2009).Supervisor–studentrelations:Examiningthespectrum

ofconflictsofinterestinbiosciencelaboratories.AccountabilityinResearch,16(2),106–126.

Manathunga,C.(2007).Supervisionasmentoring:Theroleofpowerandboundarycrossing.Studies

inContinuingEducation,29(2),207–221.

Mason,M.M.(2012).Motivation,Satisfaction,andInnatePsychologicalNeeds.InternationalJournal

ofDoctoralStudies,7,259–277.https://doi.org/10.28945/1596

McCormack,C.(2004).Tensionsbetweenstudentandinstitutionalconceptionsofpostgraduate

research.StudiesinHigherEducation,29(3),319–334.

McGagh,J.,Marsh,H.,Western,M.,Thomas,P.,Hastings,A.,Mihailova,M.,&Wenham,M.(2016).

ReviewofAustralia’sResearchTrainingSystem.ReportfortheAustralianCouncilofLearned

Academies,www.acola.org.au.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


21

Mowbray,S.,&Halse,C.(2010).ThepurposeofthePhD:Theorisingtheskillsacquiredbystudents.

HigherEducationResearch&Development,29(6),653–664.

Moxham,L.,Dwyer,T.,&Reid-Searl,K.(2013).ArticulatingexpectationsforPhDcandidatureupon

commencement:ensuringsupervisor/student‘bestfit’.JournalofHigherEducationPolicy

andManagement,35(4),345–354.

Peluso,D.L.,Carleton,R.N.,&Asmundson,G.J.(2011).DepressionsymptomsinCanadian

psychologygraduatestudents:doresearchproductivity,funding,andtheacademicadvisory

relationshipplayarole?CanadianJournalofBehaviouralScience/RevueCanadienneDes

SciencesDuComportement,43(2),119.

Pyhältö,K.,Stubb,J.,&Lonka,K.(2009).Developingscholarlycommunitiesaslearningenvironments

fordoctoralstudents.InternationalJournalforAcademicDevelopment,14(3),221–232.

RCoreTeam.(2017).R:Alanguageandenvironmentforstatisticalcomputing.RFoundationfor

StatisticalComputing.https://www.R-project.org/

Roach,M.,&Sauermann,H.(2010).Atasteforscience?PhDscientists’academicorientationand

self-selectionintoresearchcareersinindustry.ResearchPolicy,39(3),422–434.

Sinclair,J.,Barnacle,R.,&Cuthbert,D.(2014).Howthedoctoratecontributestotheformationof

activeresearchers:Whattheresearchtellsus.StudiesinHigherEducation,39(10),1972–

1986.

Tompkins,K.A.,Brecht,K.,Tucker,B.,Neander,L.L.,&Swift,J.K.(2016).Whomattersmost?The

contributionoffaculty,student-peers,andoutsidesupportinpredictinggraduatestudent

satisfaction.TrainingandEducationinProfessionalPsychology,10(2),102.

VanVugt,M.,Jepson,S.F.,Hart,C.M.,&DeCremer,D.(2004).Autocraticleadershipinsocial

dilemmas:Athreattogroupstability.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,40(1),1–13.

Vanroelen,C.,Levecque,K.,&Louckx,F.(2009).Psychosocialworkingconditionsandself-reported

healthinarepresentativesampleofwage-earners:Atestofthedifferenthypothesesofthe


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


22

demand–control–support–model.InternationalArchivesofOccupationalandEnvironmental

Health,82(3),329–342.

Vilkinas,T.(2008).AnexploratorystudyofthesupervisionofPh.D./researchstudents’theses.

InnovativeHigherEducation,32(5),297–311.

Wuchty,S.,Jones,B.F.,&Uzzi,B.(2007).Theincreasingdominanceofteamsinproductionof

knowledge.Science,316(5827),1036–1039.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


23

Figure1.Attributeranksasindicatedbycandidates(darkgrey)andsupervisors(lightgrey).PanelA)andB)showtherankofthemostimportantattributes

foracadidatestartingaPhDandfinishingaPhDrespectively.Therelativelengthoftheattributebarsrelatestothescaledrankvaluethattheattribute

receivedinrelationtootherattributes.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


24

Figure2.Averagedrankofattributesthatsupervisorshavearesponsibilityfordevelopingina

candidateasindicatedbycandidates(darkgrey)andsupervisors(lightgrey).


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


25

Figure3.Percentageofrespondentswhoreportedlevelsofguidancereceived/provided.Guidancelevelsinclude‘none’,‘onlywhenaskeddirectly’,‘whenI

seeitisneeded’,‘ateveryopportunity’fromgreytoblackrespectively.


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


26

Figure4.ProportionofcandidatesindicatingwhethertheirPhDexperienceshavenegativelyimpactedtheirwell-being(overallwell-being),andwhetherspecificaspectsofcandidaturehasnegativelyimpactedtheirwell-being.Fromstronglydisagreeingthattheirwell-beingwasnegativelyimpactedontheleft(lightgrey=hasnotexperiencednegativewell-being)tostronglyagreeingontheright(darkgrey=hasexperiencedsignificantnegativewell-being).


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


27

Table1.Participantdetails

Group Type N GenderF/M(Unspecified)

Age(range)

Candidate Current 92 55/35(1) 32±8(22-65) Graduate 21 10/11 28±10(27-61) Discontinued 1 1 -Supervisor 52 27/25 46±9(31–66)


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


28

Table2.Kendallrankcorrelationbetweentheaveragedattributeranksofcandidateandsupervisor.

Ranktestresponses:candidatevs.supervisor tau p-valueAveragerankedattributesofnewcandidates 0.660 <0.001

Averagerankedattributesofendcandidates 0.623 <0.001

Averagerankedresponsibilitytoprovideguidanceforattribute 0.500 0.008


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


29

Table3.Relationshipbetweenperceivedlevelsofguidancereceived/providedbycandidatesand

supervisor.Positivezvaluesindicatesupervisorsreportinghigherlevelsofguidance.p-valueisFDR

corrected.‘Other’attributeisnotincludedhereandwasrankedasC=14andS=16.

Attribute Predictor Estimate Std.error zvalue p-valueProp.agreeactive

guidance(C/S;%)

Rankresponsibility

(C/S)Criticalthinking Intercept 1.398 0.238 5.870 0.000

df=159 Cand./sup. 18.168 1520.847 0.012 0.990 80/100 2/1

Writtencommunication

Intercept

1.185 0.224 5.286 0.000

df=159 Cand./sup. 2.707 1.035 2.617 0.014 77/98 1/2

Problemsolving Intercept 1.135 0.221 5.130 0.000

df=159 Cand./sup. 18.431 1520.847 0.012 0.990 76/1 10/4

Independence Intercept 1.062 0.219 4.845 0.000

df=156 Cand./sup. 2.095 0.754 2.777 0.010 74/96 5/9

Disciplineknowledge Intercept 0.904 0.210 4.313 0.000

df=159 Cand./sup. 1.089 0.483 2.254 0.033 71/88 3/3

Motivation Intercept 0.817 0.206 3.970 0.000

df=159 Cand./sup. 1.380 0.514 2.682 0.013 69/90 6/15

Understandingofscientificethics

Intercept

0.775 0.204 3.796 0.000

df=158 Cand./sup. 1.194 0.481 2.481 0.020 68/88 16/11

Self-confidence Intercept 0.680 0.202 3.367 0.002

df=158 Cand./sup. 2.072 0.629 3.295 0.002 66/94 8/7

Verbalcommunication Intercept 0.521 0.197 2.640 0.013

df=158 Cand./sup. 2.658 0.748 3.553 0.000 63/96 15/10

Teamworkandcollaborativeskills

Intercept

0.521 0.197 2.640 0.013

df=158 Cand./sup. 0.996 0.418 2.385 0.024 63/82 7/12

Projectmanagementskills

Intercept

0.383 0.193 1.981 0.063

df=159 Cand./sup. 1.609 0.476 3.380 0.002 59/88 4/5

Timemanagementskills

Intercept

0.368 0.194 1.896 0.073

df=158 Cand./sup. 1.291 0.432 2.989 0.006 59/84 11/8

Disciplinespecifictechnicalskills

Intercept

0.219 0.192 1.142 0.293

df=157 Cand./sup. -0.342 0.345 -0.991 0.357 55/47 9/6

Self-reflectionskills Intercept -0.277 0.193 -1.432 0.182

df=156 Cand./sup. 1.095 0.365 2.998 0.006 43/69 12/13

Industryexperience Intercept -0.639 0.201 -3.187 0.002

df=157 Cand./sup. -0.085 0.365 -0.233 0.874 35/33 13/14


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


30

Table4.Kendallnon-parametriccorrelationbetweenhowcandidatesreportedsupervisionquality&

aspectsofwell-being,andsupervisionquality&careeraspirations.p-valuesareFDRcorrected.

Comparisonwithreportedsupervisionquality p-value tau

Well-beingimpactedbycandidatureexperiences <0.001 -0.407

Supervisorrelationshipinfluenceswell-being <0.001 -0.509

Researchenvironmentinfluenceswell-being 0.003 -0.251

Researchprogressinfluenceswell-being 0.068 -0.148

Personalexpectationsinfluenceswell-being 0.028 -0.183

Supervisorexpectationsinfluenceswell-being <0.001 -0.338

Likelihoodofpursuingacareerinresearchacademia 0.026 0.186


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


31

Table5.Wilcoxtestscomparinggenderdifferencesinexperiencesofsupervisorquality,impactson

negativewell-beingandcareeraspirations.p-valuesareFDRcorrected.

Comparisonwithgender p-value Differenceinlocation Description

Reportedsupervisionquality<0.001 4

Femalereporthigher

qualitysupervision

Negativewell-being <0.001 2

Femalereporthigher

levelsofnegativewell-

being

Supervisorrelationshipimpactsnegativewell-being <0.001 1

Femalereporthigher


beingrelatedto

supervisorrelationships

Researchenvironmentimpactsnegativewell-being <0.001 2

Femalesreportbimodal

distribution

Researchprogressimpactsnegativewell-being <0.001 3

Malesreporthigher


beingrelatedto

researchprogress

Personalexpectationsimpactnegativewell-being <0.001 3

Femalesskewed

towardsreporting

higherlevels,males

havebimodalreporting

Supervisorexpectationsimpactnegativewell-being <0.001 2

Femalesreporthigher


beingrelatedto

supervisorexpectations

Likelihoodofpursuingacareerinresearchacademia <0.001 3

Femalecareer

aspirationsaremore

highlydistributedat

theendoftheoptions


https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.958520


Documents

Supervising the PhD: identifying common …...2020/02/20 · Supervising the PhD: identifying common mismatches in expectations between candidate and supervisor to improve research