#61: Academic supervision

An academic supervisor is probably the person who reads your writing more closely than anyone else, more closely than an editor, than friends and acquaintances, or even eventual readers of the finished product.

What does a supervisor do?

Good supervision is demanding. ‘Typically, the supervisor acts as a guide, mentor, source of information and facilitator to the student,’ says University College London’s advice to doctoral supervisors. Their list of things supervisors can help with is long and includes formulating the research question, evaluating the research results, making sure the work is good enough and presenting work. 

The guidance acknowledges that there are different ways of supervising: ‘Supervisory styles are often conceptualized on a spectrum from laissez-faire to more contractual or from managerial to supportive,’ it says. Hmmm… I would be a bit suspicious of that ‘laissez-faire’ — in my view good supervision is essential to the success or failure of a Masters or PhD, and a supervisor needs to take an active part in its conception and development.

PhD student Dirk Frans, looking back on successful completion, comments: ‘there must be a “click” between student and supervisor. I spent 10 years looking for a supervisor who would suit me. Not only did we “click” but he is a world expert, committed to the poor and still doing grassroots work. Only then did I apply for a place.’ Not everyone will spend 10 years looking for a supervisor, but I agree that “click” is important.

My experience of supervision 

I’ve just submitted a 35,000-word dissertation for my Masters by Research (MRes) in English Literature at Liverpool University. Rather than being taught through set modules, a Masters by Research consists mainly of a long dissertation, the research topic decided by the student. It is a little like one third of a PhD, although it is given a grade at the end rather than passed, failed or changes required (as happens with a PhD).

The supervision I had was excellent and I wanted to share three of the reasons here.

1. The supervisor read and engaged with my work seriously and in detail.

The high quality of the feedback comments, which were both encouraging and demanding, meant that I returned to them at later stages of research as well, beyond the particular piece of writing they referred to. These comments referred to different areas: content, organisation, expression, method, further reading, general progress and formatting. 

For example, feedback on content was: ‘I think it would be good to register the instantaneousness of the transformation which is underlined by seeing it, rather than hearing it.’ (Talking about transformation of the meaning of a word by repeating it within a line of a sonnet). A comment on expression was: ‘this opening was very difficult to make sense of and might require amendment’. A comment on method was: ‘this is good and interesting but do due diligence on analysis of the final lines first, before moving to this conceptual level’. (Meaning I had not devoted enough time to analysing the poem — I found the idea of ‘due diligence’ helpful as I continued).

2. The supervisor drew out and helped me refine and develop my own best ideas

She helped me develop my own strengths rather than expecting, either implicitly or explicitly, a particular understanding or even a set of ideas which I needed to reach, which would be more difficult and discouraging.

The above two points chime in with a reflection by Dan Long, who studied for his PhD while a secondary school teacher. According to his 'PhD diary', his supervisor Linda’s ‘enthusiasm as a reader’ was crucial. He said: 

‘As a teacher I was always sensitive to the knack of encouraging people through the right balance of praise and criticism. Linda has this knack but the most important thing about her approach to supervision is the way in which she will allow you to develop your own ideas without butting in or annexing them to her own take on a subject. With the comments on my writing she has pointed me in the right direction on certain writers or approaches without being prescriptive or didactic. Thus I find myself going back to her comments for pointers and find that I’ve taken the path suggested without really having realised it. This process is difficult to articulate and much of it hinges on the supervisor being a good or pleasant personality – it’s a mixture of being positive, supportive, questioning, sceptical, appreciative, empathic, judicious, kind etc.. Often I can see that some of my ideas might be a bit inane and Linda has the knack of hoeing these ideas over in a supervision and putting oxygen and nutriment in them.

3. The supervisor recommended not only sources to read, but how to approach my reading.

For example, she gave me guidance about how much attention it might be necessary, or not necessary, to pay to different things. She also helped me work in different ways sometimes — for example, there was a stage when I definitely needed to take a step back, let things disentangle and see which ideas ‘floated to the top’.

The supervision process meant that I’ve been able to explore the questions I had when I started the project (although it’s changed quite a bit since then). So to a large extent I’ve been able to build on the preparation I did before the course started, rather than having to put it to one side. It also means I’ve been able to progress with ideas I’m genuinely interested in. I won’t be asking for my money back.

A very useful bank of PhD students’ reflections on the supervision process can be found here (scroll down to ‘students being supervised’), with a more extensive bank here. These focus on the student-supervisor relationship, institutional attitudes and processes, and the many problems that can occur.