Relationships are hard. Be it in the personal or professional sphere, they require to find a balance between the interests, needs and expectations of both parts.
The relationship between a PhD student and their supervisor is no different, and in many ways it can be particularly challenging. It may be short – about 3 years – but it’s very intense, and it can help (or not) set the ground for the future career of the student. It assumes certain independence by the PhD students, who at the same time are still learning and in need of some guidance. And with mental wellbeing as a growing concern in academia, in particular amongst PhD students, the stakes are high.
In addition, apart from being crucial from the point of view of the personal wellbeing of both parties, the dynamics of the PhD-supervisor relationship can have an important effect on how science is done and on research integrity.
That’s why on 25th of February, the PRBB Good Scientific Practice working group (GSP group) organised an event entitled “Collaborative conversations: PhD supervision agreement”. This workshop aimed to get together different stakeholders to discuss a potential ‘agreement’ between PhD students and supervisors that could help align expectations at the beginning – and throughout – the PhD.
A third event to improve research culture
This event was a follow-up of the “Challenges and tips on good supervision” event that the GSP group organised a year ago (February 2024), which in turn was a follow-up of the “Cafè culture” organised in July, 2023, to discuss the main challenges in the academia environment.
In that last event on supervision, it was apparent that many disagreements tend to come from a misalignment of expectations from both PhD students and PIs (principal investigators, or the leader of the group), and that it would be important to manage expectations and align them from the start, as well as revising them during the whole PhD. That realisation was the kick-start of this year’s event.
About 30 people participated in the event, which took place at the PRBB (Ramón y Cajal seminar room) from 2 to 4pm.
The event started with Xavier Basagaña, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) and member of the PRBB GSP group who led the workshop, introducing the event and the previous activities organised by the group to promote collaborative conversations.
Jual Valcárcel, from the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), presented an overview of what the different PRBB centres have in place regarding documents aimed at facilitating the discussion between mentors and mentees around supervision agreements. Some resources of interest were also shared, such as:
- A checklist for PhDs to work with integrity, from the EU Bridge project
- A checklist for Supervisors to work with integrity, from the EU Bridge project
- A tool to align expectations between PhD students and supervisors, from ISGlobal
- An example of a Lab philosophy, from Rosa Fernández’s lab at the Institute for Evolutionary Biology (IBE: CSIC-UPF)
The participants were then divided into 5 groups, all of them with a mix of stakeholders (each group had at least one PI) and were asked to discuss what were the major points that should be included in a potential alignment of expectations document or discussion.
On the second part of the event, the ideas were shared. From those, the following points were suggested as a potential skeleton of a “PhD supervision agreement”.
Phd supervision agreement
- Clarify from the beginning what a PhD is both for the PI and the PhD student; discuss motivations of the student and expectations from both sides. Understand what the requirements for a PhD are and have clear role descriptions and task specifications.
- Agree on a minimal commitment, understanding and considering the interests of both sides; decide on a set of minimum deliverables to be achieved during the PhD (papers, conferences attended or others). Ensure the PI shares their plan for the PhD student and any alternative plans.
- Agree on a communication language and standards – frequency of meetings, report format (a bullet point summary or a 3-page in depth report?), lab journal, results… or even personal conditions such as wellbeing or sickness. In essence, what the PI expects the PhD student to communicate and how.
- Find out what style of supervisor / PhD you are (micromanager, independent; you want more freedom, or you want to be told what to do…). Find a compromise between both styles, taking into account that the PI should be more able to adapt to the PhD than the other way around.
- Discuss (regularly) about the opportunities for career development – not only outputs of the project (publications) but also training, networking, going to conferences, etc. Agreeing about the concept of training – what skills are important and how to learn them (e.g. learn to program through a course, or learn by experience)
- Ensure PhD students know where to get external help, advice, mentorship, mental health support, etc. Also think of the possibility of having an extra person who can be a constant support throughout the PhD (for cases when the PI is unavailable). Check out options of mediators or a mentorship program in case it’s needed.
- Have regular meetings for PhD follow-up and assessment (not just scientific part, but motivation, satisfaction rate, etc.) as well as an annual or biannual revision of this expectations agreement. At the beginning you don’t know each other; agreeing on a framework is good to set the scene, but you can modify as you get to know each other.
- Ensure open conversations and a safe space
- Organise the meetings together
- Include also feedback from the student to the PI
- Discuss whether the PhD will be an ‘individual’ project or very collaborative (if so, set rules for assigning responsibilities and acknowledge everyone’s work – define role of each person involved in the project); discuss the possibility of side projects; control and prioritize the number of projects on the PhD (together the PI and the student).
- Discuss the schedule and working hours / places. A clear discussion of expectations regarding working schedule (hours, timings, weekends), annual leaves (length, distribution) and work organization (e.g. email / slack / social media communication after working hours) can help to avoid misunderstandings in the future.
- Define how to handle any internal or team conflict.
- Set clear rules for authorship.
- Define together a specific format for record keeping and data organization and ensure the PI checks on it (follow rules at institutional level if applicable, but each supervisor should check regularly and explain to students what they can or can’t do with the figures, e.g.).
Other things were mentioned, such as the importance of recognition – providing regular positive feedback when the students are doing a good job, recognizing what they have done and achieved, can help them to build confidence. Or how difficult some conversations can be – e.g. if the PhD student is disappointed with the PI or the PI with the PhD student, how can you say it in a sensitive manner? There is no real answer, but the participants thought that, since disappointment is something that builds up, if there are regular, honest conversations, reaching the ‘disappointment’ stage may be avoidable. If it is not, a mediator can help before things get too big/problematic.
Clear and open communication is key: if there are regular, honest conversations, reaching the ‘disappointment’ stage may be avoidable.
The event was rated positively, with a 4 out of 5, and the participants suggested some feedback for future similar events. It is clear conversations need to keep going at all levels, and we hope this event contributes to inspire all parties to continue working for better relationships, with everyone’s interests, needs and expectations at heart.
