supervision undergraduate thesis

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article

Students' experiences of undergraduate dissertation supervision.

• School of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

Increasingly, students completing undergraduate dissertations in Australia are expected by their supervisors to produce publishable research. Despite this, limited resources are available for supervisors of undergraduate dissertation students on how best to supervise students toward this aim. Building on our previous research on the perspectives of supervisors and dissertation coordinators of what constitutes good undergraduate dissertation supervision, we present here the findings on student perspectives of good supervision. Twenty-five students (seventeen students who were currently completing an undergraduate dissertation and eight who had recently completed an undergraduate dissertation) were interviewed about their experiences in being supervised. A critical incident methodology was used to invite students to reflect on times when supervision had gone well, and times when it had not. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Key themes to emerge were that students viewed “good” supervisors as those that were supportive and empowering, directed learning, and whose style and interests aligned with those of the students. Challenges in supervision related to lack of clarity and inconsistencies, perceived power imbalances between students and supervisors, and perceived inequities in the amount of supervision provided across students. Whilst the publication of undergraduate research is a worthy aim, the pressure to publish for some students resulted in feelings of inadequacy and perceptions of supervisors losing interest when findings were not deemed publishable.

Introduction

Undergraduate dissertations are capstone experiences that provide students with an opportunity to answer a research question within a disciplinary framework under supervision ( Ashwin et al., 2017 ). They form an essential component of many undergraduate degrees, provide a transition between course work and independent research, and may result in publishable research. Publication of findings can benefit both student and supervisor in the “publish or perish” culture of neoliberal universities ( Besley and Peters, 2009 ) which function on a market-driven corporate governance model ( Enright et al., 2017 ). However, this drive to publish also potentially positions students as research assistants completing research tasks proscribed by the supervisor to further their own research rather than learners developing independence in designing and conducting research ( Kiley et al., 2011 ). Despite these tensions, limited research has examined supervisory practices or the experiences of undergraduate dissertation students. The plethora of research on doctoral students (see Bastalich, 2017 for a review) cannot be readily applied to undergraduate dissertation students as undergraduate students have no or limited previous independent research experience ( Cook, 1980 ), may have lower interest in conducting research ( Cook, 1980 ) and need to complete their research in a shorter timeframe ( Rowley and Slack, 2004 ).

Research conducted with supervisors of undergraduate dissertation students indicates that supervisors perceive they contribute to good supervision through providing directed and clear advice, supporting and instilling confidence in students and fostering student independence and growth ( Roberts and Seaman, 2018 ). However, in this and previous studies examining supervisors' perspectives (e.g., Todd et al., 2006 ; Wiggins et al., 2016 ), the paucity of training and resource materials available for supervisors of dissertations at this level has been noted.

Previous research with students indicates that while they valued the increased autonomy, support of supervisors, and authenticity of completing an undergraduate dissertation, they faced uncertainty and challenges in collecting data and managing time ( Todd et al., 2004 ). A recent quantitative exploration of students' experiences of undergraduate dissertation supervision ( Vera and Briones, 2015 ) suggests that upwards of a third of students may not be satisfied with the supervision they receive. In the research presented here we further explore students' perceptions of undergraduate dissertation supervision.

The current research is situated in a large university that is repositioning as a research-intensive university within the Australian higher education sector, where government financial assistance to universities increases with research output ( Heffernan, 2017 ). Reflecting the increasing emphasis on research outputs, the format of honors dissertations in some disciplines has changed from a traditional dissertation to a journal article format 1 , a strategy intended to increase the number of publications resulting from honors research projects.

Participants

Twenty-five students from health science disciplines (including psychology and speech pathology) within one Australian university were interviewed for this research. At the time of the interview, 17 students were currently completing an undergraduate dissertation and eight had recently completed an undergraduate dissertation (five within the last year; not all within the same university) and were now enrolled in a masters or PhD program. Seventeen students discussed their experiences in undertaking an honors dissertation (ten current and 6 completed), while 8 students discussed completing an undergraduate dissertation in the pass stream (non-honors) of a program (7 current and 1 completed). The majority of students (56%) were aged between 20 and 29 years, and all but three of the honors students were female.

Students experienced a range of supervisory arrangements. Honors students received individual supervision (although for some this occurred in a group setting) while pass stream students worked together in groups and received group supervision. Six of the female students had one female supervisor, five had one male supervisor, and ten had two supervisors (six had two female supervisors, 1 had two male supervisor and three had one female and one male supervisor). One male student had a female supervisor and two had male supervisors. Supervision arrangements changed for some students over time with supervisors leaving or being added, or in one case being replaced altogether.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on critical incident methodology ( Flanagan, 1954 ; Butterfield et al., 2005 ). Preliminary questions asked the student to describe their dissertation project, the supervisory arrangements for their project and their relationship with their supervisors. Critical incident methodology questions asked students to identify and describe times when from their perspective supervision had gone well, and not so well. Prompts invited students to reflect on contributing factors to these situations. The final question invited students to make any further comments about their supervisory experiences.

This research was approved by Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No. PSYCH SP 2013-13). Interviews were conducted by the first author, audio-recorded, transcribed and entered into NVivo (v.10), a qualitative data analysis computer software package, for analysis. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted, following the procedures outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) . Both authors read all transcripts as part of the familiarization phase. The first author conducted a preliminary analysis. As a form of respondent validation, a summary of findings from the preliminary analysis was returned to participating students and comments invited. This was followed by the second author coding all transcripts independently and developing themes. Good concordance was found between themes developed in the two analyses.

From students' discussions of good supervisory practice, three key themes emerged: supportive supervisory relationships, directing learning to empower students, and an alignment of student-supervisor interests and approaches. Each of these themes, along with definitions and example quotes is presented in Table 1 . While each of these themes places the emphasis on the role of the supervisor, students acknowledged that good supervisory experiences also required effort on their part. Good supervision was enabled by students taking ownership of the research project and preparing for supervisory meetings. Where supervision meetings went well, students reported feeling re-motivated, with increased focus and clarity about the project.

Table 1 . Themes underlying students' perceptions of good supervision.

Whilst most students reported positive supervisory experiences, some experienced difficulties in the relationship. From students' discussions of times when supervision did not go well, five themes emerged: lack of clarity, inconsistencies, power imbalances, inequities and overworked supervisors who are under pressure to publish. Each of these themes, along with definitions and example quotes is presented in Table 2 . Underlying these themes are differences in expectations between students and supervisors.

Table 2 . Themes relating to students' perceptions of supervisory challenges.

The key differences emerging between honors and pass stream students related to the group composition. Honors students choose their own supervisor(s) and topics (at least to some degree) while pass stream students were assigned to groups and had limited choice of supervisor or topic. Overall, pass stream students expressed less passion about their topics (at least in the early stages) and sometimes experienced conflict with other group members (e.g., social loafing, dominant group members).

This research aimed to explore students' conception of good supervision of undergraduate dissertations. Encouragingly, all but one student were able to highlight a time when supervision had gone well, with students able to identify both the supervisors and their own contribution to positive experiences. In accordance with previous research in this area ( Todd et al., 2004 ) students valued the support of supervisors and their increasing autonomy.

Most students were also able to describe a time when supervision had not gone so well, and these experiences were characterized by differences in expectations between students and supervisors. Consistent with Todd's (2004) finding of students experiencing uncertainty, lack of clarity and inconsistences were key themes to emerge in this research. However, unlike Vera and Briones (2015) finding of upwards of a third of students not being satisfied with their students, a more nuanced picture emerged in this study with students able to identify both times when supervision was going well, and times when it did not.

Of concern, the findings indicate that the pressure to publish experienced by academics within a neoliberal university setting is in some cases being transmitted to students and has the potential to impact upon supervisory experiences for undergraduate students. While only a minority of students interviewed referred to this tension, the findings highlight the need for supervisors to not let their own disappointment translate into poorer supervision when students' research is not publishable. One participant reported “fishing” for significant results, aligning with recent research reporting that supervisors shape students' attitudes toward questionable research practices ( Krishna and Peter, 2018 ). Student engagement in questionable research practices has also been documented earlier in the undergraduate degree ( Rajah-Kanagasabai and Roberts, 2015 ), further highlighting the need for supervisors to clearly articulate best practices and demonstrate these in their own research. The primary purpose of the undergraduate dissertation is the research learning experience for the student, and potential publication needs to be viewed as a bonus rather than an expectation. Whilst publication in high impact peer-reviewed journals may be a priority for supervisors, students can also benefit from other avenues of dissemination, such as presenting findings at conferences or publishing in student research journals.

This research was conducted within one university that is repositioning as a research-intensive university. Supervisory practices may vary across universities according to the focus of the university (teaching vs. research) and the resources provided, and may also vary across disciplines. Given the range of supervisory arrangements (single vs. multiple supervisors, single vs. multiple students) and gender mixes within these arrangements, it was not possible to tease out potential differences in perceptions of supervision according to gender concordance/discordance between supervisors and students. This is an area that warrants further research.

Despite these limitations, the findings provide insight into what students' value and find challenging in their undergraduate dissertation supervisory relationships, and may have some transferability across different academic settings. The findings from this research, along with interviews with new supervisors and workshops with experienced supervisors (see Roberts and Seaman, 2018 ) informed the development of a range of supervisory resources. A guide for supervisors and a range of supervisory tools for use by supervisors are feely available from http://www.dissertationsupervision.org/ , and provide advice on some of the issues raised here, such as the student-supervisor relationship, co-supervision and managing your supervisory workload. A guide for students is also freely available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286239145_Guide_for_Honors_and_Coursework_Dissertation_Students/download . This guide covers preparing for supervision, forms of supervision and getting the most from supervision, along with advice for specific stages of the project from the first supervision meeting through to data collection, analysis and interpretation, with a section on overcoming difficulties in managing a research project. We encourage readers to access and use these materials.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Author Contributions

LR was responsible for designing the research, conducting the interviews, reviewing the analysis, and leading the writing of the paper. KS analyzed the interview data.

This research was funded by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching [OLT 2013 National Teaching Fellowship] awarded to LR.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

1. ^ For example, the Australian psychology guidelines for undergraduate dissertations currently permit either a traditional dissertation or a journal article format ( Australian Psychology Accreditation Standards for Psychology Courses, 2010 ).

Ashwin, P., Abbas, A., and McLean, M. (2017). How does completing a dissertation transform undergraduate students' understandings of disciplinary knowledge? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42, 517–530. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1154501

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Australian Psychology Accreditation Standards for Psychology Courses (2010). Rules for Accreditation and Accreditation Standards for Psychology Courses . Available online at: https://www.psychologycouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/public/Standards_Rules_2010_Jun_APAC_Accreditation_for%20_Psychology_Courses_v10.pdf

Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 1145–1157. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702

Besley, T., and Peters, M. A. (2009). “Neoliberalism, performance and the assessment of educational research quality: comparing United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand,” in Assessing the Quality in Higher Education: International Perspectives ,ed T. Besley (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers), 27–48.

Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., and Maglio, A. S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qual. Res. 5, 475–497. doi: 10.1177/1468794105056924

Cook, M. C. F. (1980). The role of academic supervisor for undergraduate dissertations in science and science-related subjects. Stud. High. Educ. 5, 173–185. doi: 10.1080/03075078012331377206

Enright, E., Alfrey, L., and Rynne, S. B. (2017). Being and becoming an academic in the neoliberal university: a necessary conversation. Sport Educ. Soc. 22, 1–4. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2016.1259999

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 51, 327–358. doi: 10.1037/h0061470

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heffernan, T. A. (2017). A fair slice of the pie? Problematising the dispersal of government funds to Australian universities. J. High. Educ. Policy Manage. 39, 658–673. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2017.1377965

Kiley, M., Boud, D., Manathunga, C., and Cantwell, R. (2011). Honouring the incomparable: honours in Australian universities. High. Educ. 62, 619–633. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9409-z

Krishna, A., and Peter, S. M. (2018). Questionable research practices in student final theses–Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor's perceived attitudes. PLoS ONE 13:e0203470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203470

Rajah-Kanagasabai, C. J., and Roberts, L. D. (2015). Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented theory of planned behavior. Front. Psychol. 6:535. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00535

Roberts, L. D., and Seaman, K. (2018). Good undergraduate supervision: perspectives of supervisors and dissertation coordinators. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 23, 28–40. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2017.1412971

Rowley, J., and Slack, F. (2004). What is the future for undergraduate dissertations? Educ. Train. 46, 176–181. doi: 10.1108/00400910410543964

Todd, M., Bannister, P., and Clegg, S. (2004). Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final-year social science students. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 29, 335–355. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000188285

CrossRef Full Text

Todd, M. J., Smith, K., and Bannister, P. (2006). Supervising a social science undergraduate dissertation: staff experiences and perceptions. Teach. High. Educ. 11, 161–173. doi: 10.1080/13562510500527693

Vera, J., and Briones, E. (2015). Students' perspectives on the processes of supervision and assessment of undergraduate dissertations. Cult. Educ. 27, 726–765. doi: 10.1080/11356405.2015.1089391

Wiggins, S., Gordon-Finlayson, A., Becker, S., and Sullivan, C. (2016). Qualitative undergraduate project supervision in psychology: current practices and support needs of supervisors across North East England and Scotland. Qual. Res. Psychol. 13, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2015.1075641

Keywords: undergraduates, dissertations, student perceptions, supervision, undergraduate research

Citation: Roberts LD and Seaman K (2018) Students' Experiences of Undergraduate Dissertation Supervision. Front. Educ . 3:109. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00109

Received: 13 September 2018; Accepted: 23 November 2018; Published: 04 December 2018.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2018 Roberts and Seaman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lynne D. Roberts, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2019

The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study

• Leila Bazrafkan 1 ,
• Alireza Yousefy 2 ,
• Mitra Amini 1 &
• Nikoo Yamani 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  19 , Article number:  320 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

9966 Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Supervision is a well-defined interpersonal relationship between the thesis supervisors and their students. The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns which can explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors. We aimed at developing a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

We have conducted a qualitative grounded theory study in 20 universities of medical sciences in Iran since 2017 by using purposive, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling and enrolled 84 participants. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Based on the encoding approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998), the data underwent open, axial, and selective coding by constant comparative analysis. Then, the core variables were selected, and a model was developed.

We could obtain three themes and seven related subthemes, the central variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the subthemes, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions during expertise process which generated the supervisors’ competence development in research supervision consisted maturation; also, seven subthemes as curious observation, evaluation of the reality, poorly structured rules, lack of time, reflection in action, reflection on action, and interactive accountability emerged which explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors.

Conclusions

As the core variable in the expertise process, accountability must be considered in expertise development program planning and decision- making. In other words, efforts must be made to improve responsibility and responsiveness.

Peer Review reports

Supervision is a well-defined term in the interpersonal relationship between thesis supervisors and students. A supervisor is designated to assist the student’s development in terms of their research project [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Faculty members supervise the students because qualified supervision leads to success on the part of the student, and it has moral, reputational, and financial outcomes for the institution. Supervisors are expected to train students to gain competence in areas such as specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills [ 4 ]. Expertise is derived from the three essential elements of knowledge, experience, and the ability to solve problems in society [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. .According to Dreyfus, acquisition of expertise or practical wisdom represents a higher level of “self-actualization.” At this point, one reaches a level in which they can flourish in their talents and abilities. This enables the teachers to function in scientific communities and multicultural environments [ 7 ].

Wiscer has identified three stages in the thesis supervision process and describes the duties of the supervisors in each of them [ 8 ]. Pearson and Brew state that maturation in specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills are the major areas that need to be promoted in the student. Moreover, these are the generic processes in which the supervisors should be involved for efficacious supervision if they aim to help the students develop in various institutional, disciplinary and professional settings; acquire appropriate expertise and features needed for employment; and make an outline of what might form a flexible professional development program for supervisors in this setting [ 3 ]. Vereijken et al. emphasized novice supervisors’ approaches to reach expertise in supervision and explained the relationship between practice and dilemmas among novice supervisors [ 9 ].

.Despite the importance of expertise in higher education and particularly research supervision, research abilities are not considered as one of the priorities in the employment of the academic staff. Furthermore, the newly employed faculty members are often involved in teaching, administrative tasks, and services in health care; this inhibits them from expertise attainment in other aspects such as research supervision [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In this regard, Malekafzali believes that in the area of research activities, the faculty members have serious weaknesses in defining the problem, choosing the appropriate method for research, analyzing the data, interpreting the results, and publishing scientific articles. Besides, there is a lack of coherent and compiled training programs which can enhance their research capabilities [ 13 ].

One of the most important factors contributing to the thesis and research quality is the process of developing expertise in supervisors’ research supervision. Most studies in our country have focused on research abilities during the research, and fewer studies have focused on the process of expertise acquisition in thesis supervision, and no actual model has been proposed for this [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The quantitative researches could not explain exactly how and through which process the faculty members, as thesis supervisors, become experts in thesis supervision since the expertise process is multi-factorial and has many unknown aspects. Considering the effective role of qualitative research in clarifying ambiguous and unknown aspects, we chose the grounded theory approach for this study [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. This theory will be used when the investigator intends to determine the patterns of actions and social interactions needed for the development of expertise by specific groups of people in a specific setting [ 17 , 18 ].

In this study, we aimed to identify the themes that explain the expertise development process among thesis supervisors in Iran, and also to develop a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

This study was carried out in 20 universities of medical sciences with different ranks in Iran because universities are the places where supervisors and students interact purposefully to discourse the needs of experts on specific occasions and in specific conditions. In these universities, different students study with various disciplines. There are three types of universities in Iran. Type 1 universities are the ones with the most facilities, faculties, research presentations, international collaborations, and scientific outcomes. The second rank belongs to type 2, and the one with the least mentioned qualities is type 3 universities. All three types of universities were included in this study. In all these courses, writing a thesis is one of the requirements with the same role and regulation. The majority of the students in this research project were in the late stages of both undergraduate and postgraduate educational programs within the same function and regulation.

Study design

We conducted this qualitative study based on a grounded theory approach in a systematic form [ 17 , 18 ]. Grounded theory is a symbolic interaction which is derived from systematic data collection during the research process. In this strategy, collecting and analyzing data and the theory derived from the data have a close association [ 17 , 19 ]. The investigator’s purpose in using grounded theory is to describe and clarify a phenomenon in the social condition and to identify the essential processes working within [ 17 ].

Participants

In this study, 84 subjects including 56 faculty members of medical sciences, 20 undergraduate and postgraduate students (medical students, MS of Science, Ph.D. and residents), and eight managers in the field of research supervision participated. Using purposive sampling, snowball sampling with maximum variation, we selected the participants from a variety of academic ranks with different work experiences, as the key informants in thesis supervisors. Then, to continue the sampling, we used theoretical sampling and data saturation. The inclusion criterion was 5 years of work experience in thesis supervision, and the exclusion criterion was the unwillingness to participate in the study. Firstly, we collected data in Shiraz University with the help of a research supervisor who is known for his high quality of supervision and then data gathering was initiated in the university of Isfahan. There were 34 key informants from the two universities and 22 individuals from other universities. Students were selected based on their willingness to participate.

Theoretical sampling was used next to develop the tentative theory. The basis for theoretical sampling was the queries that emerged during data analysis. At this stage, the researcher interviewed the supervisor, administrators, and students. Theoretical sampling facilitated in verifying the supervisors’ responses and credibility of categories and resulted in more conceptual density. Data saturation was obtained when no new data emerged in the last five interviews. Therefore, data gathering by interviews was terminated.

Data collection

We collected the data primarily by semi-structured interviews from September 2017 to September 2018. The participants were recognized with unknown codes based on their field of work and setting, and each participant was interviewed in one or two sessions. Having obtained the participants’ informed consent, we recorded the interviews and they were transcribed verbatim immediately. The interviews began with open-ended general questions such as, “What did you experience during research supervision?” and then the participants were asked to describe their perceptions regarding their expertise process. Leading questions were also used to deeply explore the conditions, processes, and other factors that participants recognized as significant issues. The interview was based mostly on the questions which came up during the interview. On average, each interview lasted for an hour, during which field notes and memos were taken. At the end of each session, the participants were asked to give an opinion on other important topics which did not come up during the interview, followed by data collection and analysis which are simultaneously done in grounded theory; analytic thought and queries that arose from one interview were carried to the next one [ 20 ].

The data were also collected by unstructured observations of the educational atmosphere in the laboratory, and the faculty member and students’ counseling offices. These observations lasted 5 weeks, during which the faculties and students’ interactions and the manner of supervision were closely monitored. The observation was arranged to sample the maximum variety of research supervisor activity for some faculty member who is known to be a good or poor supervisor and detailed organized field notes were kept.

Also, we used the field notes to reflect emergent analytic concepts as a source of three angulations of data, frequently reconsidering the data, and referring to field notes in the context of each participant’s explanation. Analysis of the field notes facilitated in shaping contextual conditions and clarifying variations in the supervisors’ responses in each context. This led to the arrangement of several assumptions in the effect of contexts.

Data analysis

We simultaneously performed data collection and analysis. We read the scripts carefully several times and then entered them into MAXQDA (version10). We collected and analyzed the data practically and simultaneously by using a constant comparative method. Data were analyzed based on the 3-stage coding approach, including open, axial, and selective coding by Strauss and Corbin In the open coding stage, we extracted the basic concepts or meaning units from the gathered information. Then, more general concepts were formed by grouping similar concepts into one theme. The themes became clearer throughout the interviews. Then, the constructs of them were compared with each other to form tentative categories. After that, we conducted axial coding by using the guidelines given in Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) Paradigm Model [ 21 ]. The extracted themes (codes) in the previous (open coding) stage were summarized in 3 main themes during the axial coding stage, and then the core variables were selected in the selective coding stage [ 20 ]. To generate a reasonable theory to the community, a grounded theorist needs to condense the studied happenings a the precise sequence. To check the data against categories, the researcher asks questions related to certain categories and returns to the data to seek evidence. After developing a theory, the researcher is required to confirm the theory by comparing it with existing theories found in the recently available research [ 21 ]. We finalized the model after 5 days; during this time, we explained the relations between subcategories and the core category for realizing theoretical saturation and clarifying the theoretical power of the analysis explained about work as narration.

In terms of accuracy improvement, we used the Lincoln and Guba’s criteria, including credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability [ 22 , 23 ].

To increase credibility, we collected data from different universities in Iran, and their credibility was also confirmed by three reviewers and experts in qualitative research. Also, some of the participants rechecked the data and the investigators’ description and interpretation of their experiences carefully. Prolonged engagement and tenacious observation facilitated the data credibility. In this way, the process of data collection and analysis took 12 months. Data triangulation and method triangulation also confirmed credibility [ 20 ]. The use of the maximum variation sampling method contributed to the dependability and conformability of data. Furthermore, once the explanation of the phenomenon was full, it was returned for confirmation to 3 participants of each university, and they validated the descriptions. Finally, to attain transferability, we adequately described the data in this article, so that a judgment of transferability can be made by readers.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were informed about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

In this study, the mean age of the faculty members and students was 44.34 ± 14.60 and 28.54 ± 2.38 years, respectively. All the faculty members and most of the students were married. Only three students were single. Three themes and seven interrelated sub-themes emerged from the data (Table  1 ). The main variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the categories, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions of the expertise process are displayed in a model (Fig.  1 ).

The process of expertise attainment in research supervisor model

Theme 1: engagement

In this theme, the initial phase of expertise, the supervisor starts to observe the others’ behavior in the students’ supervision and guidance based on the practical and cognitive skills previously acquired. They attempt to recognize the different needs based on the amount of their motivation and previous competence so that the models become important for them, and they recognize the scope of the needs based on their importance. Then, they try to understand the needs and values of real thesis supervision in this context. In this theme, two sub-themes, curious observation, and evaluation with reality emerged.

Curious observation

In this sub-theme, several concepts such as personal interest, self-awareness, ability to meet the students’ needs, ability to detect weaknesses in research skills, and observation of role models in this area act as the impellent factors in expertise attainment in research supervision.

Regarding personal interest, a successful faculty member in the area of research supervision said:

“…In my experience, faculties must be selected from those who have curious personalities as well as being good observers, first of all. In this way, they will have the appropriate intrinsic character to acquire knowledge in guidance and supervision)…” (Faculty member N0.3)

According to our participants, the most important intrinsic motivation is the desire to update the content knowledge and skills in research supervision. An experienced professor said:

“ … The knowledge gap between the new and old generations of faculty members is what forced me to update my knowledge...and it has been detected by myself…” (Faculty member N0.3).

Another important intrinsic motivation is the ability to meet the educational and research needs of students. However, usually these needs are combined; one of the faculty members put it:

“…I would like to be an expert in this process (thesis supervision) to meet my students’ needs. Because I have seen and felt this need many times before…” (Faculty member N0.12).

Since the publication of research directly affects the promotion of a faculty, some professors seek skills that are practical in article publication such as several statistical and basic skills for thesis writing. The participants considered the self-awareness and consciousness elements as very important. Through consciousness, one can better understand their needs.

Evaluation with reality

In this sub-theme, in the initial phase maintaining academic dignity and competition motivates the faculty members to obtain expertise in research supervision. At this point, the supervisor evaluates themself and their potentialities considering more precise features and acquired information (or data), so that they can find the distance between the optimal state and the existing conditions. They also evaluate the others’ potentialities in this field realistically and compete. Good supervision is then highlighted for them. Based on the supervisors’ experience, at this stage, they are seriously engaged in evaluation and competition.

Another motivation was obtaining academic and social promotion. Although the number of theses supervised by them can affect the academic promotion of supervisors, this effect is insignificant. The real motivation is maintaining academic dignity and competition amongst peers. A member of the clinical faculties stated:

“ … To enhance academic dignity, a faculty member should master various skills such as patient care, teaching, educational skills, and last but not least, research supervision. I got involved in research and thesis supervision because I felt I should not be left behind…” ( Faculty member N0.17).

At this stage, the junior supervisor tries to increase the cognitive knowledge in research supervision such as increasing specific knowledge of the discipline, planning, directing of a project effectively, and developing good interpersonal skills presented in research supervision.

Theme 2: supervision climate

In this theme, we describe the contextual factor which changes the process of expertise attainment in thesis supervisors. The result of the study reflects some concerns about the relationship between individuals in the context in that they interact purposefully but with barriers. The supervision climate in the thesis supervision process in this theme led to the emergence of two sub-themes, challenging shortcomings and role ambiguity. These challenges include poorly structured rules and regulations which, in turn, can cause confusion and role ambiguity.

Challenging shortcomings

This report shows that contextual factor plays a significant role in promoting the quality of a thesis in a university, but the process is faced with altered challenges such as inadequate resources, inadequate time, and ineffective evaluation and rule and regulation deficit. These challenges include the following. Most faculty members and students have experienced these shortcomings.

Various inadequate resources, such as access to new and online journals, laboratory equipment were one of the challenges for supervisors in certain aspects which required more competency, and the constraints on communication with the other academic centers worldwide undermine the sense of competition and hinder the effort put in to become an expert. One of the students said: “… I see how difficult it is to gain access to a good article or laboratory materials in this situation …we try, but it just isn’t possible...” (Faculty member N0.17).

Based on our results, the sudden changes in personal life, work position, and organizational change can affect the path to expertise. These changes such as marriage, work overload, admission of students over the capacity, new rules and regulation of scholar citizenship, promotion and so on can have both positive and negative impacts, depending on whether they facilitate or restrict the professional development of faculties as supervisors. For instance, an increase in student admission causes work overload, which results in neglecting self-improvement.

“…As you know, we are over- loaded with students (they have increased the number of admissions), which is beyond our capacity. This means that most of our time will be dedicated to teaching. Self-improvement is difficult due to lack of time…” (Faculty member N0.6).

Role ambiguity

Poorly structured supervision can occur where there is an ambiguous context of supervision structure, supervisors and students’ roles. Most participants, as faculty members, managers, and students have experienced some difficulties in this regard, due to poorly structured rules(EDITORS NOTE; do you mean ‘rules and regulations ‘here) and regulations and its impact on the thesis supervision. It is not only the rules themselves but also the way they are implemented. One of the faculty members expressed confusion over the rules related to the dissertation as follows:

“…It should be made clear what I must do exactly. It is obvious regarding supervision on the work of students; there are not the same expectations from an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and a professor. Most problems occur as a result of the gap in legislation; For example, the rules imply a full Professor does not need a statistical consult, while many supervisors like me do not have enough knowledge and skills in statistical analysis...” (Faculty member N0.1).

Failure to implement the rules also increases the sense of this ambiguity, and there are no specific rules for verifying capability and audits to determine inadequate experts in thesis supervision. The role ambiguity or unclear roles and responsibilities of the supervisor and student in the thesis process were other limitations that were emphasized by the majority of participants. A faculty member stated:

“… Supervisors have different roles during the thesis process. To enhance this process, one must exactly know one’s responsibilities. For instance, in the beginning, the supervisor should guide the students through the process of finding a suitable research topic, but if the teacher's role is unclear, then instead of guiding they may actually choose the topic, and if so, the students will be prevented from exploring, using their creative thinking, and improving their problem-solving abilities…” (Faculty member N0.1).

Various performance

Based on the participants’ experiences, in this situation in which there are inadequate resources and organizational and social problems, some faculty members are well-trained in the field of supervision. One of the senior faculty members said: “It is my honor to mention that despite the existence of many obstacles, I have been able to train well-educated students, who have become researchers and contribute to the development of science in my country.”

One of the most important causes of poor performance is ineffective evaluation. Based on the participants experiences, two main problems can result in ineffective evaluation. First of all is the inadequate feedback from the supervisor which leads to unmotivated learners and the second one is lack of feedback from the stakeholders and educational institutes which in turn diminishes the supervisor’s efforts toward self-improvement. These can lead to poor performance both in students and supervisors.

In one of the Ph.D. student’s words:

“…In this system, there is no supervision on the supervisors; there is no control or evaluation of their work. Also, the supervisors don't get feedback from their students during the research process, and there is no third person who investigates whether the report is real or not…” (student N0. 7).

Evidence from data suggests that an unfair judgment and evaluation of academic theses are other problems in the process of acquiring the merit of teachers. If there isn’t proper evaluation, students and supervisors would not have the right standards to correct their performance.

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student had experienced:

“…I was so thrilled that my thesis supervisor was an experienced, older and well-known professor, but unfortunately, I soon found out that not only was his scientific knowledge outdated, but also he lacked the necessary supervision skills, so he let the students do all the work unsupervised. He did not take any responsibility during the process…” (Student N0.4).

Another point which leads to poor performance is the fact that some faculty members do not comprehend the main purpose of the thesis writing process; actually, they do not know the difference between teaching and guiding in the project or thesis supervision. One of the basic science supervisors said: “… Some faculties consider a thesis as research work and not a lesson in which research methodology should be taught...” (Faculty member N0.5).

Performing poorly along with ignoring professional ethics can also lead to increased tension and stress in student-teacher relationships. This can result in despondency and frustration in both students and teachers and create a vicious cycle of inefficient supervisors who will train inefficient students or future supervisors.

One of the students put it this way:

“...I feel the absence of a supervisor in my research; I would have been more successful, and my results would have been better if I had had more guidance.” (Student N0.6).

Theme 3: maturation

In this theme, the secondary phase of expertise, the individual is emotionally involved and feels that success or failure is important. This is a stage in which the learner needs an integrated schedule to be competent, and as a result, success or failure will follow. The supervisors frequently think about personal promotion and takes action in this way. They try out different approaches, and sometimes due to disappointment and embarrassment they fail. Some individuals quit at this stage and never reach competence, or they have what may be called an artificial competence. And this does not mean that they are not considered to be well-known supervisors; rather, they know, as do the students, that they are not competent. At this stage, the supervisor attempts to acquire the identity of a researcher and tries to enhance his availability, and be dutiful, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic in research supervision. Along the lines of this theme, three sub-themes of Reflection in action, Reflection on action, and Interactive accountability emerged.

Reflection in action

In this sub-theme, the patterns of expertise development begin, and self-directed learning, participatory teaching and learning strategies through a hidden curriculum are considered. At this stage, the supervisor tries to follow self-directed learning, and the amount of time allocated to expertise acquirement seems to be one of the most important factors. In this regard, one stated:

“…My success in this case (research supervision) is, first of all, due to self-evaluation and self-effort. For instance, to be in control and take full responsibility, I think about everything related to the guidance of the students, and I felt the need to master every aspect of research, even the statistical skills needed for analysis…” (Faculty member N0.8).

The supervisors’ activities were divided into two groups: self-directed –learning strategy and gaining experience through individual effort. Expertise requires continuous interaction and experience. They evaluate their learning, and by this, they experience the manner of managing and allocating time for effective supervision. According to participants, the amount of time allocation for expertise seems to be one of the most important factors for self-directed learning and expertise acquirement.

The formal training workshops provided an opportunity for supervisors with similar terms and the same problems in terms of learning experiences, environmental features, students, and educational problems to come together in one place. Participants also considered the formal participatory teaching necessary since it can provide an opportunity for the peers to get together and exchange their experiences. As a clinical faculty member put it:

“…Collaborative strategies can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the facilitation of experience exchanges amongst teachers, peers, and colleagues and modeling the behavior of teachers and teaching workshops that emphasize the importance of their expertise in research supervision…” (Faculty member N0.1).

In our participants’ experience, this self-directed learning is effective if, and only if, it is done accompanied by proper training and participatory teaching. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. As an example, one of the students in this field said:

“…my supervisor was a great teacher and put in a lot of time and effort on my thesis supervision; however, due to his lack of research skills, I had to change my thesis proposal three times. However, after he participated in a training course at the University of Oxford, his progress was unbelievable and impressive…and I saw his expertise…” (Student N0.11).

One of the faculty members also quoted:

“…When the teachers feel a gap in their knowledge or skill, the university must provide a comfortable, appropriate, and easy way for learning them …” (Faculty member N0.10).

Regarding this subject, one of the Managers in this field stated:

“…Another improvement strategy is the use of interpersonal interactions among faculty members, these instructive interpersonal interactions among the faculty members in similar conditions make it possible to benefit from peers’ feedback …” (Manager N0.1).

A hidden curriculum strategy, like learning through trial and error can also affect the expertise process. One of the professors expressed:

“… Learning through trial and error is very effective; through the supervision of each thesis, we learn some of our mistakes and try not to remake them in the next one …” (Faculty member N0.3).

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student’s experience:

Reflection on action

The learner provides an integrated schedule for their competence and uses all the facilitators and facilities around them for further efficiency and promotion. This stage is named Conditional Self-efficacy by expertise experience. At this stage, the supervisor is considered a competent individual who can guide the students based on the experiences of specialized and non-specialized faculty members.

In this regard, one of the students said:

“…I can acknowledge that my supervisor functioned very impressively in this thesis, but guidance and supervision are not static; rather, it is an active process. To be a good supervisor, the faculty members should try to keep up to date and revise their attitudes, duties, and their specialty and knowledge. …” (Student N0.3).

According to the participants, at this stage the supervisors have achieved meta-competence and general characteristics or professional value; are able to guide the students and others; and develop characteristics such as acquiring specific knowledge of the discipline, especially well-organized knowledge, planning, directing of a project effectively, having good interpersonal skills, and being dutiful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic in research.

One of the PhD students states: “… My supervisor is typical of an expert. His ingenious inquiries, extraordinary attention to science and his personality have always been admired and he has been a role model for me…” (Student N0.6).

For example, the supervisors attend educational programs on scientific writing and thesis evaluation as well as ethics in research and apply them in team work. Gradually, their competency can enable them to function as a good supervisor for their students. At this stage, the supervisor develops so that they can respond due to discovery and intuition. These responses replace their dubious and unskilled reactions. The supervisor now reflects various stages of supervision and guidance. They take action, and in fact, a part of their reactions are achieved through observation and recognition. In this stage, they not only recognize what should be done but also distinguish how to achieve it with more precise discretion. A competent person does the appropriate task in the most appropriate time using the right platform.

The time period required for training or acquiring expertise varies from one person to another. Some individuals become experts very soon, whilst it takes others longer.. As one of the professors said:

“…In the beginning, I was too concerned with my responsibility as a thesis supervisor and was not sure what I should do. However, after ten years of experience, I have gained a sense of awareness which makes supervision easier for me. Of course, up to date knowledge and skill as to managing a thesis are always necessary. It took me about 12 years to reach where I am today. Furthermore, an individual who is expert at present, will not be so in two years, so I want to say that the expertise in thesis supervision in a continuum, which depends on the supervisor’s reflections on work and activity …” (Faculty member N0.15).

The continuous path of expertise in supervision can be affected by various factors. This has resulted in a range of expertise and performance in supervisors. This range and continuum is a theme that most of our participants agreed with. One of the managers revealed:

“…There is surely a continuum of expertise. We cannot deny the expert supervisors; however, the existence of those with poor supervising skills must also be acknowledged (in thesis supervision). There are those on whose ethics, honesty, and knowledge we can rely on. On the other hand, there are a few who are not as trustworthy as needed.” (Manager N0.1).

The core variable: interactive accountability

As shown in Fig. 1 , through this survey, we found that the core variable in thesis supervision process is the interactive accountability shaped by interactions of supervisors and students in an academic setting, so to enhance the accountability, each group must take responsibility and do his or her job. In this regard, one of the managers claimed:

“…When supervisors find themselves responsible, and the university officials recognize this responsibility, the supervisors are motivated to seek expertise and try to enhance their competencies and acquire learning strategies because of being accountable…” (Manager N0.2)

This means that teachers must be responsive to the needs of students, university and community. Accountability is a mutual interaction between the students and their supervisor, in other words, if the student is responsive to his duties, he creates motivation in his supervisor. One of the participants commented;

“…I've always tried to be a competent thesis supervisor, so that I have the ability to meet the needs of the community and university as well as students. I say to myself when I accept the supervision of a thesis, I should be well accountable for its results…” (Faculty member N0.32)

This study aimed at exploring the processes of expertise among thesis supervisors based on the experience of faculty members, students, and managers of Iranian universities of medical sciences. The section concludes with an explanation of how these themes are a cohesive relationship, which enables the expertise development of supervisors. It seems that the core variable in the expertise process is the concept of interactive accountability and efforts to acquire the capacity to respond to the students and academic needs. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. The importance of accountability and various types of ability in thesis supervision has also been emphasized by other studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. It was also mentioned as the major feature of the supervisor in other studies [ 26 , 27 ].

In this study, “accountability” emerged as the behavioral pattern through which the supervisors resolved their main concern of being an expert in being responsive to academic and students’ needs. Supervision training is complex since academic choices in the real world can depend on supervisor characteristics. The results of this study revealed that in the initial phase of supervision, observation, evaluation, and reflection in action and maturation stage in the secondary phase were the major themes that emerged. This result compared with Bandura’s social learning and self-efficacy theory was significant in similarity and difference. Bandura believes that achieving self-efficacy is one of the most important contributors to competence. In his model, he suggested four sources of self-efficacy, including previous accomplishments, vicarious experiences such as having a role model, verbal persuasion such as coaching and evaluative feedback, and emotional arousal [ 28 , 29 ]. Likewise, in this study, we found that the emotional arousals such as personal interest in cooperative learning, peer competition, meeting the needs of students, self-awareness and the need for upgrading are the significant factors for the faculties’ expertise. Also, our participants found that the utilization of previous experiences is the most effective method of achieving personal competence. However, this study indicates conditional expertise, which means if an expert’s information is not up to date and they do not make any effort in this regard, being an expert and having expertise is not a permanent condition.

This study also revealed that self-effort, workshops, and role models, as part of a hidden curriculum, are influential methods of teacher empowerment which agrees with the results of some studies such as those of Britzman et al. and Patel et al. Patel et al. have also suggested the importance of role modeling; they believe that modeling and observing other faculty members behavior is an effective tool for promoting and strengthening the sense of efficacy in learners [ 30 , 31 ].

Based on our study results, among the learning methods used in Iran, the collaborative education and problem-based learning is the widely accepted method which is preferred by most faculties. Therefore, cooperative and collaborative learning strategies can be used in educating the faculty members towards expertise in supervision, as revealed in other studies [ 32 , 33 ].

Lack of time is reported by supervisors to be one of the most common barriers in trying to become an expert and carry out respectable worthy supervision, and taking one’s time is acknowledged as a motivating factor for putting in more effort in thesis supervision [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

The effect of contextual factors is studied in several surveys [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Gillet et al. state that contextual and organizational factors play a key role in the competence of teachers in research supervision [ 36 ]. This study also showed that faculty expertise in thesis supervision was significantly affected by the impact of contextual interventional factors such as sudden changes, structural shortcomings, and educational environment. Based on our and other studies’ results, among the sudden changes, increased workload due to the increase in the student population has greatly affected expertise. Moreover, while an increase in the workload can lead to more experienced faculty members, it is very time-consuming and, therefore, reduces the chance to obtain new information and skills in thesis supervision [ 33 , 37 ].

Similar to our study, other studies such as those of Al-Naggar et al. and Yousefi et al. have also found insufficient monitoring and lack of formative evaluations to be one of the main obstacles in the thesis supervision process. Studies have indicated that to improve the supervision process, careful planning and incentive rules must be applied [ 5 , 34 ]. Similarly, our participants mentioned that rules and regulations which have resulted in the positive effect of research on scholarship and promotion had truly motivated them. Like our study, other studies in Iran have also found that the amount of time allocated to learning is one of the influential factors affecting the faculty members’ expertise [ 13 , 38 ]. A malfunctioning relationship between the student and supervisors can affect both of them negatively; that is, it can compel the students to misbehave and also reduce the teachers’ motivation to develop better skills. This malfunction may be due to the lack of constructive interactions or paternalism leadership in research supervision [ 39 , 40 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this study provided a conceptual framework that can be used in policy making and studies of expertise development in research supervision. This framework is based on the perception and experience of the majority of those involved in the thesis process. It also provides teachers with an opportunity to compare and share their experiences.

This model has three fields of experience, which yields a comprehensive gradient of the factors used for the development and progress of thesis supervision quality. In other words, it is a rational structure that makes an effort to cover a comprehensible number of stages, of concept, achievement, and impact or consequence. In other words, this model is a combination of a great number of items that help to recognize the present and future processes of expertise in thesis supervision, and future challenges in this area which predict results and impacts of supervisor’s knowledge, attitude and research supervision. Table one offers the categories and clarifications [ 17 ].

This study is based on our overall model of expertise attainment. This model reveals that specific personal efforts such as observation of prior knowledge, evaluation or self-assessments alongside the university contextual dynamics help to figure out how supervisors select their approaches and engagements, and respond carefully to their task, which in turn impacts the supervisors’ level of expertise and, finally, outcomes such as work and perseverance, which then help them to become an expert. Similar to the social learning theory of Bandura, this model also states that there is a mutual relationship between different parts that can mutually affect one another. For instance, faculty members have shown in various studies how one’s previous academic success and failure can affect the future levels of involvement and motivation. Based on the study aims, we focused on only three of the components of the model: observation, evaluation, and self-efficacy; in terms of motivational processes, we focused on four motivational components. The first is self-efficacy, defined as students’ judgments of supervisor abilities to carry out a task, and their beliefs about their ability to do so show the highest levels of academic achievement and also engagement in academic behaviors promoting learning.

Through the use of this grounded theory, we can begin to understand the supervisors’ challenges and why it may be difficult to become an expert in research supervision in practice. The junior supervisors curiously observe and evaluate their environment by reflection and in action and do their best to attain knowledge and skills in the supervision of the theses, so that they can reach maturation. They are mainly supported by prior knowledge of the research supervision, which they had acquired when they were students. The concept of “interactive accountability” refers to the fact that if the supervisor is responsive to the students’ needs, they can be an expert in supervision. If they cannot overcome the barriers and shortcomings such as lack of time, they will not attain expertise in thesis supervision.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This grounded theory study describes the main dimensions of expertise in research supervision from straight reports of a large qualitative sample ( n  = 84) which consists of thesis supervisors, from all Iranian universities in three different data collection phases. Like other qualitative research, the results of this study cannot be generalized; therefore, it is recommended that the researchers conduct further qualitative research in other contexts to support these findings.

Despite the above limitations, we believe that this model can be useful for supervisors in the thesis supervision area, not only in analyzing the supervisors’ experience of supervision and being an expert but also in recognizing the areas of intervention or development of teacher training.

Implications of the study

The findings of the present study will help administrators to choose the supervisor with definite criteria in medical sciences institutes and facilitate the expertise in the supervision process through elimination of the shortcomings and improvement of the educational climate. The supervisor’s interest, talent, and capabilities should be assessed at the beginning of their employment as academic staff. Supervisors should attend educational workshops for updating their knowledge about supervision. It is recommended that collaborative strategies and methods should be used, so that we can contribute to the process of becoming an expert. The assessment of supervisors’ functioning in supervising and provision of feedback can contribute to the process of expertise. Feedback received from students about their supervisors will improve the supervisor’s further expertise and capabilities. For future studies survey on the impact of successful models in thesis supervision, disclosure analysis studies about student and supervisor are recommended.

In this study, we aimed to find out how thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision. The results of our study indicated that thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision in two stages of engagement and maturation. The emotional need to be responsive towards peers and students is the main motivation for the acquisition of competency at observation and evaluation phase of engagement. Through the evaluation and observation phase, the supervisors reach cognitive competence, such as research skills. Also, in the maturation phases, they reach meta-competence in research supervision such as problem-solving and resolving dilemmas by reflection in and when exposed to dilemmas. Meanwhile, the effects of supervision climate include shortcomings and role ambiguities which should be taken into account. According to this model, when supervisors are exposed to such problems, they apply multiple strategies, such as self-directed and collaborative learning; and learning by trial and error and from the role models. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. This study indicated that interactive accountability, as the core variable, can be guaranteed in thesis supervisors by making the role clear, creating a supportive context, and improving the academic competencies of staff in an ongoing fashion. Therefore, this can promote constructive expertise in supervisors and foster a deeper understanding of the supervisor’s expertise in thesis supervision.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets produced and analyzed during the present study are not publicly accessible due to participant confidentiality, but are obtainable from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Harwood N, Petrić B. Adaptive master’s dissertation supervision: a longitudinal case study. Teach High Educ. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541881 .

Hal de Kleijn RA, Meijer PC, Brekelmans M, Pilot A. Adaptive research supervision: exploring expert thesis supervisors’ practical knowledge. High Educ Res Dev. 2015;34(1):117–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(2):135–50.

Light, G, Cox R, Calkins S. Learning and teaching in higher education: the reflective professional. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman; 2009.

Youseffi A, Bazrafkan L, Yamani N. A qualitative inquiry into the challenges and complexities of research supervision: viewpoints of postgraduate students and faculty members. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2015;3(3):91.

Google Scholar  

Lee AM. Developing effective supervisors: concepts of research supervision. South Afr J High Educ. 2007;21(4):680–93.

Hall-Ellis SD, Grealy DS. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition: a career development framework for succession planning and management in academic libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2013;74(6):587–603.

Wisker G. The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.

Vereijken MW, van der Rijst RM, van Driel JH, Dekker FW. Novice supervisors’ practices and dilemmatic space in supervision of student research projects. Teach High Educ. 2018;23(4):522–42.

Haghdoost AA, Ghazi M, Rafiee Z, Afshari M. The trend of governmental support from post-graduated Iranian students in medical fields to study abroad. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(Suppl 1):141–6.

Malekzadeh R, Mokri A, & , Azarmina P. Medical science and research in Iran. Arch Iran Med (2001)4(1):27–39.

Samari A, Sorkhabi E, Omran S, Geraeenejed. Research and identify the factors contributing to the process of “academic development”. Iran Univ Stud Educ Plann. 2014;2(4):67–100.

Malekafzali H, Majdzadeh S, Fotouhi A, Tavakoli S. Applied research methodology in medical sciences. Tehran: Tehran University of Medical Sciences; 2004.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication; 2012.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 1998.

Jeon Y-H. The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18(3):249–56.

Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd edition. Routledge: Taylor and Francis group; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dilley P. Interviews and the philosophy of qualitative research. J High Educ. 2004;75(1):127–32.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 2008.

Cho JY, Lee E-H. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. Qual Rep. 2014;19(32):1–20.

Gioia DACK, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods. 2013;16(1):15–31.

Skeith L, Ridinger H, Srinivasan S, Givi B, Youssef N, Harris I. Exploring the thesis experience of master of health professions education graduates: a qualitative study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:113.

Yeatman A. Making supervision relationships accountable: graduate student logs. Aust Univ Rev. 1995;38(2):9–11.

Saaban A, Abu B, Jiar YK. Students and supervisors’ roles and responsibilities in doctoral research supervision. Adv Sci Lett. 2018;24(1):66–8.

Carter S, Laurs D, Chant L, Wolfgramm-Foliaki E. Indigenous knowledges and supervision: changing the lens. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2018;55(3):384–93.

Boston P. The three faces of supervision: Individual learning, group learning, and supervisor accountability. In C. Burck and G. Daniel (2010) (Eds.) Mirrors and Reflections Processes of Systemic Supervision. Routledge, Taylor, and Francis; 2010:27–48.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Manathunga C. The development of research supervision: “turning the light on a private space”. Int J Acad Dev. 2005;10(1):17–30.

Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J Manag. 2012;38(1):9–44.

Bandura A. On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. J Manag. 2015;41(4):1025–44.

Britzman DP. Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. -State University of New York Press; 2003.

Patel M, Reed D, Smith C, Arora V. Role-modeling cost-conscious care—a national evaluation of perceptions of faculty at teaching hospitals in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(9):1294–8.

Howard M, Steensma HK, Lyles M, Dhanaraj C. Learning to collaborate through collaboration: how allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms. Strateg Manag J. 2015:n/a.

Steinert Y. Faculty development: core concepts and principles. Steinert Y, editor. Faculty development in the health professions. Innovation and change in professional education. 11: Springer Netherlands; 2014. 3–25.

Al-Naggar R, et al. Doctorate international students’ satisfaction and stress on academic supervision in a Malaysian University: a qualitative approach. Educ Res. 2012;3(3):264–9.

Gillet N, Gagné M, Sauvagère S, Fouquereau E. The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2012;22(4):450–60.

Harden RM. AMEE guide no. 14: outcome-based education: part 1-an introduction to outcome-based education. Med Teach. 1999;21(1):7–14.

Bazrafkan L, Shokrpour N, Yousefi A, Yamani N. Management of stress and anxiety among phd students during thesis writing: a qualitative study. Health Care Manag. 2016;35(3):231–40.

Ghadirian L, Sayarifard A, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F, Yunesian M. Challenges for better thesis supervision. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:32.

Vehviläinen S, Löfström E. ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Stud High Educ. 2016;41(3):508–24.

Grossman ES. ‘My supervisor is so busy...’ informal spaces for postgraduate learning in the health sciences. South Afr J High Educ. 2016;30(2):94–109.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to thank all research participants of Medical Sciences Universities (faculty, student, and managers) who contributed to the study. The authors would also like to thank the Education Development Center of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for cooperation in this study and special thanks to Professor Shokrpoour for her editing.

The present article was extracted from the thesis written by Leila Bazrafkan. The design and implementation of the project was financially supported by Esfahan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 92–6746).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Leila Bazrafkan & Mitra Amini

Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Alireza Yousefy & Nikoo Yamani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LB developed the study design, conducted the interviews and analysis, ensured trustworthiness, and drafted the manuscript. AY, as the supervisor participated in the study design, supervised the codes and data analysis process, and revised the manuscripts. NY as research advisor participated in the study and provided guidance during the study and MA revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

LB is an assistant professor of medical education in Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

AY is Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan

MA is Professor of Medical Education in the Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

NY Associate Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikoo Yamani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were justified about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

Consent for publication

Participants gave printed informed consent for the use of passages for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bazrafkan, L., Yousefy, A., Amini, M. et al. The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ 19 , 320 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2019

Accepted : 29 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Medical sciences faculty
• Grounded theory
• Thesis supervision

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Supervisor and Student Perspectives on Undergraduate Thesis Supervision in Higher Education

• Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 65(1):1-21
• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

• Hogeschool Utrecht

• Utrecht University

• University Medical Center Utrecht & Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Guro Karlsholm

• Petra Waters
• Linnéa Ärlegård

• Minjuan Wang
• Jonathan Michael Spector

• Ahmad Munir
• Husnaeni Husnaeni

• Odontoestomatologia
• Yuri Castro-Rodríguez
• Raúl Rojas-Ortega
• Sarai Enita

• SookYee Gan

• Christopher M. Clark

• Kurt Williams
• Rachel Salter

• Adam A. Colestock
• Susan M. Gass
• Alison Mackey

• P.L. Peterson

• Sven Schueler
• Bettina Rösken-Winter
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Help & FAQ

Supervisor and Student Perspectives on Undergraduate Thesis Supervision in Higher Education

• Promising School Careers in a Diverse City

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Access to Document

• 10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115 Licence: CC BY-NC-ND
• 00313831.2020 Final published version, 2.83 MB Licence: CC BY-NC-ND
• Persistent link

Other files and links

Fingerprint.

• Higher Education Keyphrases 100%
• Student Perspectives Keyphrases 100%
• Thesis Supervision Keyphrases 100%
• Supervisors' Perspective Keyphrases 100%
• In-the-moment Keyphrases 100%
• Undergraduate Thesis Keyphrases 100%
• Student Learning Social Sciences 100%
• Learning Process Social Sciences 100%

T1 - Supervisor and Student Perspectives on Undergraduate Thesis Supervision in Higher Education

AU - Agricola, Bas T.

AU - Prins, Frans J.

AU - van der Schaaf, Marieke F.

AU - van Tartwijk, Jan

N1 - With supplementary files. Funding: This research was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research with grant number 023.002.122; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek.

N2 - Diagnosing teachers are teachers who perceive diagnostic information about students’ learning process, interpret these aspects, decide how to respond, and act based on this diagnostic decision. During supervision meetings about the undergraduate thesis supervisors make in-the-moment decisions while interacting with their students. We regarded research supervision as a teaching process for the supervisor and a learning process for the student. We tried to grasp supervisors’ in-the-moment decisions and students’ perceptions of supervisors’ actions. Supervisor decisions and student perceptions were measured with video-stimulated recall interviews and coded using a content analysis approach. The results showed that the in-the-moment decisions our supervisors made had a strong focus on student learning. Supervisors often asked questions to empower students or to increase student understanding. These supervising strategies seemed to be adapted to students’ needs, as the latter had positive perceptions when their control increased or when they received stimuli to think for themselves.

AB - Diagnosing teachers are teachers who perceive diagnostic information about students’ learning process, interpret these aspects, decide how to respond, and act based on this diagnostic decision. During supervision meetings about the undergraduate thesis supervisors make in-the-moment decisions while interacting with their students. We regarded research supervision as a teaching process for the supervisor and a learning process for the student. We tried to grasp supervisors’ in-the-moment decisions and students’ perceptions of supervisors’ actions. Supervisor decisions and student perceptions were measured with video-stimulated recall interviews and coded using a content analysis approach. The results showed that the in-the-moment decisions our supervisors made had a strong focus on student learning. Supervisors often asked questions to empower students or to increase student understanding. These supervising strategies seemed to be adapted to students’ needs, as the latter had positive perceptions when their control increased or when they received stimuli to think for themselves.

KW - in-the-moment decisions

KW - student perceptions

KW - teacher-student interaction

KW - research supervision

U2 - 10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115

DO - 10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115

M3 - Article

SN - 1470-1170

JO - Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

JF - Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Teaching & Learning

• Education Excellence
• Professional development
• Case studies
• Teaching toolkits
• MicroCPD-UCL
• Assessment resources
• Student partnership
• Generative AI Hub
• Community Engaged Learning
• UCL Student Success

Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction  

Supervising projects, dissertations and research at UCL from undergraduate to PhD.

1 August 2019

Many academics say supervision is one of their favourite, most challenging and most fulfilling parts of their job.

Supervision can play a vital role in enabling students to fulfil their potential. Helping a student to become an independent researcher is a significant achievement – and can enhance your own teaching and research.

Supervision is also a critical element in achieving UCL’s strategic aim of integrating research and education. As a research-intensive university, we want all students, not just those working towards a PhD, to engage in research.

Successful research needs good supervision.

This guide provides guidance and recommendations on supervising students in their research. It offers general principles and tips for those new to supervision, at PhD, Master’s or undergraduate level and directs you to further support available at UCL.

What supervision means

Typically, a supervisor acts as a guide, mentor, source of information and facilitator to the student as they progress through a research project.

Every supervision will be unique. It will vary depending on the circumstances of the student, the research they plan to do, and the relationship between you and the student. You will have to deal with a range of situations using a sensitive and informed approach.

As a supervisor at UCL, you’ll help create an intellectually challenging and fulfilling learning experience for your students.

This could include helping students to:

• formulate their research project and question
• decide what methods of research to use
• become familiar with the wider research community in their chosen field
• evaluate the results of their research
• ensure their work meets the necessary standards expected by UCL
• keep to deadlines
• use feedback to enhance their work
• overcome any problems they might have
• present their work to other students, academics or interested parties
• prepare for the next steps in their career or further study.

At UCL, doctoral students always have at least two supervisors. Some faculties and departments operate a model of thesis committees, which can include people from industry, as well as UCL staff.

Rules and regulations

Phd supervision.

The supervision of doctoral students’ research is governed by regulation. This means that there are some things you must – and must not – do when supervising a PhD.  

• All the essential information is found in the UCL Code of Practice for Research Degrees .
• Full regulations in the UCL Academic Manual .  

All staff must complete the online course Introduction to Research Supervision at UCL  before beginning doctoral supervision.

Undergraduate and Masters supervision

There are also regulations around Master’s and undergraduate dissertations and projects. Check with the Programme Lead, your Department Graduate Tutor or Departmental Administrator for the latest regulations related to student supervision.

You should attend other training around research supervision. 

• Supervision training available through UCL Arena .

Doctoral (PhD) supervision: introducing your student to the university

For most doctoral students, you will often be their main point of contact at UCL and as such you are responsible for inducting them into the department and wider community.

Check that your student:

• knows their way around the department and about the facilities available to them locally (desk space, common room, support staff)
• has attended the Doctoral School induction and has received all relevant documents (including the Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees )
• has attended any departmental or faculty inductions and has a copy of the departmental handbook.

Make sure your student is aware of:

• key central services such as: Student Support and Wellbeing , UCL Students' Union (UCLU) and Careers
• opportunities to broaden their skills through UCL’s Doctoral Skills Development Programme
• the wider disciplinary culture, including relevant networks, websites and mailing lists.

The UCL Good Supervision Guide  (for PhD supervisors)

Establishing an effective relationship

The first few meetings you have with your student are critical and can help to set the tone for the whole supervisory experience for you and your student.

An early discussion about both of your expectations is essential:

• Find out your student’s motivations for undertaking the project, their aspirations, academic background and any personal matters they feel might be relevant.
• Discuss any gaps in their preparation and consider their individual training needs.
• Be clear about who will arrange meetings, how often you’ll meet, how quickly you’ll respond when the student contacts you, what kind of feedback they’ll get, and the norms and standards expected for academic writing.
• Set agendas and coordinate any follow-up actions. Minute meetings, perhaps taking it in turns with your student.
• For PhD students, hold a meeting with your student’s other supervisor(s) to clarify your expectations, roles, frequency of meetings and approaches.

Styles of supervision

Supervisory styles are often conceptualized on a spectrum from laissez-faire to more contractual or from managerial to supportive. Every supervisor will adopt different approaches to supervision depending on their own preferences, the individual relationship and the stage the student is at in the project.

Be aware of the positive and negative aspects of different approaches and styles.

Reflect on your personal style and what has prompted this – it may be that you are adopting the style of your own supervisor, or wanting to take a certain approach because it is the way that it would work for you.

No one style fits every situation: approaches change and adapt to accommodate the student and the stage of the project.

However, to ensure a smooth and effective supervision process, it is important to align your expectations from the very beginning. Discuss expectations in an early meeting and re-visit them periodically.

Checking the student’s progress

Make sure you help your student break down the work into manageable chunks, agreeing deadlines and asking them to show you work regularly.

Give your student helpful and constructive feedback on the work they submit (see the various assessment and feedback toolkits on the Teaching & Learning Portal ).

Check they are getting the relevant ethical clearance for research and/or risk assessments.

Ask your student for evidence that they are building a wider awareness of the research field.

Encourage your student to meet other research students and read each other’s work or present to each other.

Encourage your student to write early and often.

Checking your own performance

Regularly review progress with your student and any co-supervisors. Discuss any problems you might be having, and whether you need to revise the roles and expectations you agreed at the start.  

Make sure you know what students in your department are feeding back to the Student Partnership Committee or in surveys, such as the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) . 

Responsibility for the student’s research project does not rest solely on you. If you need help, talk to someone more experienced in your department. Whatever the problem is you’re having, the chances are that someone will have experienced it before and will be able to advise you.

Continuing students can often provide the most effective form of support to new students. Supervisors and departments can foster this, for example through organising mentoring, coffee mornings or writing groups.

Be aware that supervision is about helping students carry out independent research – not necessarily about preparing them for a career in academia. In fact, very few PhD students go on to be academics.

Make sure you support your student’s personal and professional development, whatever direction this might take.

Every research supervision can be different – and equally rewarding.

Where to find help and support

• Research supervision web pages from the UCL Arena Centre, including details of the compulsory Research Supervision online course. 
• Appropriate Forms of Supervision Guide from the UCL Academic Manual
• the PhD diaries
• Good Supervision videos  (Requires UCL login)
• The UCL Doctoral School
• Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees
• Doctoral Skills Development programme
• Student skills support (including academic writing)
• Student Support and Wellbeing
• UCL Students' Union (UCLU)  
• UCL Careers

External resources

• Vitae: supervising a doctorate
• UK Council for Graduate Education
• Higher Education Academy – supervising international students (pdf)
• Becoming a Successful Early Career Researcher , Adrian Eley, Jerry Wellington, Stephanie Pitts and Catherine Biggs (Routledge, 2012) - book available on Amazon

This guide has been produced by UCL Arena . You are welcome to use this guide if you are from another educational facility, but you must credit UCL Arena. 

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

Research supervision at UCL

Connected Curriculum: a framework for research-based education

The Laidlaw research and leadership programme (for undergraduates)

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre 

Download a printable copy of this guide  

Case studies : browse related stories from UCL staff and students.

Sign up to the monthly UCL education e-newsletter  to get the latest teaching news, events & resources.  

Education events

Funnelback feed: https://search2.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-learn... Double click the feed URL above to edit

Thesis supervision

Find a thesis supervisor.

Thesis supervisors must be authorized by their Faculty to supervise theses.

Finding a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

Before thinking about a supervisor, students should make sure they are committing to the area of study that most interests them. They should ask themselves whether they are enthusiastic enough about a topic area to sustain this enthusiasm over the period of time it will take to prepare the thesis. Speaking to students and professors who do research in the proposed area of study will help clarify the students’ thoughts. The students should make sure they are well-informed before they approach any potential supervisors.

A professor is not obligated to take on a student if he or she feels the match-up would not be a good one, or if the professor lacks lab space, time or funding.

A student may have more than one supervisor. When mention is made of the thesis supervisor, it is implicit that there may be a co-supervisor.

• Information to collect before contacting a potential supervisor
• Questions to ask after the meeting with the potential supervisor
• Professors, by research interest

Appointment of a thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

From the uoZone Application tab, click Service Requests to create a service request and appoint a thesis supervisor.

Meetings between the supervisor and the student arrow_drop_down

Preliminary meetings.

Before a student begins researching and writing a thesis, the supervisor and the student should have a detailed discussion of expectations and requirements. Below are examples of general and specific issues to be discussed during the preliminary meetings.

As soon as possible, the student should obtain ethics approvals or any other required approvals to conduct research. The student should discuss with the thesis supervisor and visit the  Office of Research Ethics and Integrity  Website.

• General and specific topics to be discussed

Regular meetings

The student and the supervisor should plan to meet regularly whether or not the student has any finished work to show to the supervisor.

If it is a major meeting, the student should draw up and deliver to the supervisor an agenda beforehand. If the meeting is to discuss text that has already been written, the student must send the draft well in advance of the meeting. 

After the meeting, and based on this agenda, the student prepares a brief report on what was discussed and decided, and shares this report with the supervisor.

It is important to be productive at these major meetings, but it is also crucial to just keep in touch.

Components of a typical agenda

• a summary of the purpose of the meeting
• a review of what was discussed at the previous meeting and what has been accomplished to date
• a discussion and clarification of the current topics, ideas and issues
• next steps as a result of this discussion
• agree with a date for the next meeting

Feedback and revision arrow_drop_down

All along during the thesis preparation process, a student will receive feedback and should expect to do revisions. Revising a thesis based on feedback from the thesis supervisor, advisory committee (if applicable) and from the jury is an important part of the thesis preparation process.

Part of the advancement of knowledge that preparing a thesis fosters involves engaging in dialogue and learning from these discussions, learning how to communicate clearly, and responding appropriately to suggestions for improvement

Already a student?

Types of supervision, co-supervision arrow_drop_down.

A joint management with a professor in another discipline may be considered if the research project of a student is favoured.

Cotutelle arrow_drop_down

A doctoral student may prepare a thesis under a cotutelle agreement. You find below additional information to help familiarize yourself with the roles played by each of the stakeholders.  

Learn more about Cotutelle.

Thesis advisory committee arrow_drop_down

In many academic units, a thesis advisory committee, also referred to as thesis committee, is assembled as soon as a student finds a thesis supervisor. Please note that not all academic units have thesis committees, the students must check on the protocol in their own academic unit.

Constitution of the thesis committee

How the thesis committee is formed varies from academic unit to academic unit. The thesis supervisor plays the biggest role by approaching colleagues who have the expertise and inviting them to join the committee.

A thesis committee is made up of:

• the student
• the thesis supervisor, and
• usually at least two other professors.

The thesis supervisor is usually the chair of the thesis committee.

Role of the thesis committee

While the roles and responsibilities of thesis committees may vary from one academic unit to another, members of the committee should provide guidance to the student on thesis planning, research and writing; be available to discuss ideas or for consultation on any other matter related to the thesis; and, if this is the practice within the discipline, evaluate the thesis after submission.

Thesis committees meet according to a schedule set either by the academic unit or by the committee itself. The student is usually responsible for initiating the meetings. When concerns about the progress of the research arise, the supervisor and/or academic unit may require meetings at more frequent intervals.

Useful information

Contracts arrow_drop_down.

Some supervisors and students have contracts or agreements to formalize the expectations and delineate the responsibilities in the preparation of a thesis.

Although these agreements are not considered official documents with force of law, they set out the expectations of the student and supervisor in relation to many of the issues covered in this Website section and help avoid conflict and misunderstandings.

A student should not make assumptions about who will do what in the research and who gets credit for any new discoveries or inventions. A supervisor should not assume the supervised student is aware of any assumptions the supervisor has or any authorship or credit protocols that may exist in the area of research.

Professors who use contracts do so because they have found such agreements are a good tool for helping students achieve their goals and finish their theses. However, while a written agreement can be very useful, one of the keys to a successful supervisor–student relationship is good communication and mutual trust. Both sides need to foster and build on that. 

Absences arrow_drop_down

Sometimes a potential supervisor is approached by a student looking for a thesis supervisor and both the student and professor agree it would be a good match, but the professor is going on an academic leave partway through the period in which the student will be preparing this thesis. In the event of a scheduled absence from the University for more than one month, the thesis supervisor must make the necessary arrangements with his students and the academic unit concerned to ensure that students continue to be accompanied during the supervisor's absence.

A thesis supervisor who is going to be away should let the student know well in advance. The same goes for the student. The student should discuss this with the thesis supervisor well ahead of time. In case of illness, the student should let the supervisor know the expected timeline for recovery.

If the student is planning to suspend work on the thesis for a term or more, for whatever reason, the student needs to apply for and receive approval for a leave of absence. Please note that absence has an impact on eligibility for funding.

Professionalism arrow_drop_down

As a student, the development of professional skills—for example, communicating appropriately in writing and in person, responding promptly to e-mails, coming prepared to meetings, following up after meetings, respecting deadlines, tracking changes to the text so that it is easy for the supervisor to review each draft after revisions—is important in the preparation of the thesis. Some faculties offer courses in professional skills.

If the student feels aspects of the supervisor’s behavior are unprofessional, he or she should consult the graduate program director or the chair of the academic unit.

Changing supervisors arrow_drop_down

As for changing supervisors partway through a thesis, this is not recommended. Keep in mind that as long as the thesis is logical and the conclusions drawn from the data are valid, the student and the supervisor do not need to be in total agreement on methodology, analysis or interpretation.

The thesis committee may be able to fill in whatever gaps the student perceives in the relationship with the supervisor. If the research goes off in an unexpected direction, one that is not very familiar to the thesis supervisor, the student could see what opportunities are available and what guidelines the academic unit has for this situation. The student could consider joint supervision as an alternative to finding a new supervisor.

If the student has explored all other options and still wish to change supervisors, he or she should talk to the graduate program director. If the supervisor happens to be the graduate program director, the student should talk to the director of the academic unit. If the student remains uncertain or dissatisfied, he or she should talk to the vice-dean graduate studies of his/her home faculty. Beyond that, the student can talk to the university ombudsperson. The student can request that the exchanges with any or all of these individuals (directors, vice-dean, ombudsperson) remain confidential.

The student should be sure to explore options carefully before withdrawing from the supervisory arrangement—a student who terminates the relationship with a supervisor before finding another supervisor may have difficulty securing another supervisor and compromise the thesis project.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Enrichment Programs

Individualized & Interdisciplinary Studies Program

Guide for thesis supervisors.

Thank you for supervising an individualized major senior thesis project. Your expertise is critical in guiding the student’s project and setting the criteria for its evaluation. The guidelines below outline some considerations particular to individualized major students. They are most appropriate for traditional research projects but may also be relevant to less traditional final projects.

All individualized majors complete a capstone, which provides them an opportunity to integrate knowledge they have acquired during the course of their majors. About 40-45 percent of individualized majors do so by completing a thesis. (The rest complete our capstone course or an approved alternative.)

Thesis projects usually take the form of a traditional research study, but other formats, such as a photo essay, film, website, or piece of creative writing are also possible. Thesis projects, whatever their form, should contribute to the development of knowledge or practice in new ways, involve significant background research, and require sustained attention in the implementation of the project. If the final product takes a less traditional form, it should include a piece of writing that describes the student’s learning process.

Thesis Courses

Some thesis projects will comprise six credits completed over the course of two semesters. This is mandatory for students completing Honors Scholar requirements in their individualized major. Non-honors students may complete a one-semester, three-credit thesis project. Students intending to complete a thesis project must submit a thesis proposal  which they have discussed with their thesis supervisor no later than the last day of classes of the semester before they begin their thesis.

In the social sciences and humanities : In the Fall semester of the senior year, students will typically begin their research by enrolling in a thesis-related research seminar, graduate course, or independent study in their thesis supervisor’s department. During the Spring semester, students will enroll in UNIV 4697W Senior Thesis (for which the thesis supervisor serves as instructor) in which they will complete the research and write the thesis. During this process, the student meets regularly with the thesis supervisor for feedback on data collection, evidence gathering, analysis, and writing.

In the sciences , students may follow a more extended sequence, perhaps two to three semesters of data collection and laboratory work (independent studies or research courses) followed by thesis writing (UNIV 4697W) in the final semester.

Learning Outcomes

Individual faculty will differ in expectations regarding research methodology, theoretical approaches, and presentation of findings. Nonetheless, there are some general criteria and intended learning outcomes for all individualized major thesis projects.

• The student’s research, analysis, and writing on the thesis project should be relevant to their individualized major and represent an opportunity for them to integrate and deepen at least several aspects of study in the major.
• A thesis should do more than summarize the existing literature on a particular topic. It should make an original contribution to the field of study, present new findings in the form of new data, or new, critical interpretations of existing material. It should reflect a good command of the research methodologies in the relevant discipline(s).

Upon completion of the thesis project the student should be able to:

• Define a research question and design a substantial research project.
• Select a methodological approach to address the research question.
• Identify appropriate sources and collect relevant and reliable data that addresses the research question.
• Analyze the strengths and limitations of different scholarly approaches to the question, and recognize the resulting interpretative conflicts.
• Develop an argument that is sustained by the available evidence
• Present that argument in a clear, well-organized manner.

Requirements for Honors Students

As noted above, all Honors students are expected to complete at least six credits of thesis-relevant coursework. In addition, all Honors students are expected to have a second reader and make a public presentation of their thesis project.

Second Reader

We ask Honors students to identify a second reader for their thesis from a relevant discipline, which may be the same as, or different from, the supervisor’s discipline. The second reader will provide the student with a different perspective and may provide additional insights on how to achieve the intended learning outcomes of the thesis. The thesis supervisor, in consultation with the student, determines when to bring the second reader on board. It is the supervisor’s prerogative to define how the grade for the thesis will be determined.

Public Presentation

Honors students are required to make a public presentation of their thesis research in a format negotiated with the thesis supervisor. Where possible, the audience should include the thesis supervisor, the second reader, and an IISP staff member. Other faculty members and the student’s peers may be invited to join the audience, as well.

Existing departmental exhibitions or “Frontiers in Undergraduate Research” make excellent venues for student presentations. If a student cannot find a venue for his or her presentation, please consult with IISP and we will coordinate one.

Note: Although non-Honors students who are completing a thesis are not required to have a second reader or make a public presentation, we would certainly welcome them to do so.

Honors Advising

An IISP staff member serves as Honors Advisor to each individualized major following an Honors Scholar plan of study. The staff member’s role as an Honors advisor is to coordinate and facilitate students’ plans for completing Honors Scholar requirements, including the thesis, and to monitor progress toward completion.

Thesis Course Registration

Specific instructions for registering for UNIV 4697W are available on the Capstone page .

We very much appreciate your willingness to supervise an individualized major’s senior thesis. If you have any questions about the Individualized Major Program or about supervising an individualized major thesis, please contact IISP staff .

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to ask a professor to supervise my undergraduate thesis research?

I am second year CompSci student in Europe and in a short while I'll have to start my undergraduate thesis research. The domain I want to research is cloud computing. One of my lecture professors suggested that I contact a master's professor regarding my undergraduate research, saying that he'll be alright with supervising my thesis research. My only problem is, how do I ask a professor I do not know to supervise my undergraduate thesis research?

• computer-science
• undergraduate
• research-undergraduate
• supervision

• 2 academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4109/… –  user9646 Commented Apr 28, 2018 at 8:50

Just talk to them as if they were a human being. Give them the info you just gave us, ask if they are interested, keep the email short and to the point. Here is an example email, adapt as needed.

Dear Prof. XXX,

(or whatever is the appropriate salutation where you live)

I am a second year student in [field] at [university]. I am interested in [domain]. Soon I will start my undergraduate thesis research. Professor YYY, who teaches us [course], recommended that I contact you, and I would be interested in having you supervise my thesis. Would you be interested in supervising my undergraduate thesis research? I am at your disposal if you need more information and/or would like to meet me. Thank you for your time. Best regards, ZZZ

(or whatever closing formula is appropriate where you live.)

I don't know if this is perfect (English isn't my native language), but you get the idea.

• I am at your disposal - does not it seem too low? –  Coder Commented Apr 28, 2018 at 9:52
• @Coder What do you mean? –  user9646 Commented Apr 28, 2018 at 10:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged thesis computer-science undergraduate research-undergraduate supervision ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Why does a halfing's racial trait lucky specify you must use the next roll?
• Why do National Geographic and Discovery Channel broadcast fake or pseudoscientific programs?
• Does the Greek used in 1 Peter 3:7 properly translate as “weaker” and in what way might that be applied?
• Fill a grid with numbers so that each row/column calculation yields the same number
• How Can this Limit be really Evaluated?
• Are there any theoretical reasons why we cannot measure the position of a particle with zero error?
• The answer is not wrong
• How much missing data is too much (part 2)? statistical power, effective sample size
• Trying to find an old book (fantasy or scifi?) in which the protagonist and their romantic partner live in opposite directions in time
• Is every recursively axiomatizable and consistent theory interpretable in the true arithmetic (TA)?
• What did the Ancient Greeks think the stars were?
• Is there any video of an air-to-air missile shooting down an aircraft?
• Meaning of “ ’thwart” in a 19th century poem
• Existence of a special ordering of the elements of a finite group
• How is yield calculated for a portfolio?
• Is it possible to configure an eqnarry environment to automatically split over multiple pags
• Why an Out Parameter can be left unassigned in .NET 6 but not .NET 8 (CS0177)?
• How to reply to reviewers who ask for more work by responding that the paper is complete as it stands?
• Iteration Limit for expression involving Gamma functions
• How bad would near constant dreary/gloomy/stormy weather on our or an Earthlike world be for us and the environment?
• pgf plots-Shifting the tick label down while changing the decimal seperator to comma (,)
• What would be non-slang equivalent of "copium"?
• Can I use "historically" to mean "for a long time" in "Historically, the Japanese were almost vegetarian"?
• Purpose of burn permit?

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: Hello from my little bunk bedroom in Taipei. If you've been following me since I was 17 and doing my A-levels, then it might come as a surprise to you that I have just submitted my undergraduate thesis. Yes, I just submitted the first big draft of my dissertation. I'm now going to receive feedback from my supervisor so that I can iterate it for the big final deadline in April. Crazy, absolutely crazy. I have learnt so bloody much about the beast that is writing your thesis and I just want to say that if you are struggling with writing it, you are not alone. This is not an easy task. It can feel incredibly overwhelming, especially because it might be the first time you've ever done a big project like this before, but you've got this, we've got this, and I hope my experience can shed some light, which is useful for you. If you don't know who I am, hi, my name is Jade. I go to a relatively new university called Minerva and I study an undergraduate degree in cognitive science. Cognitive science falls under social sciences, but I also have a lot of courses within natural sciences and it's quite an interdisciplinary approach into how the mind works from psychology, neuroscience, computer science, and I absolutely love my degree, but my specific interest is in the science of learning, how humans learn, everything from memory and long-term potentiation to course design. In particular, I'm really interested in bridging the gap between what is known about how we learn and the way that education systems are run and how things like active learning aren't really employed, how there's such a large focus on rote memorisation and basically how we can close this gap between the literature and the systems we employ. So yeah, my thesis is focused on the science of learning and I chose a unique dissertation model in that I have a written deliverable, but I'm also producing a product. My written deliverable is what I'm going to talk about more today because it's what most people do as their undergraduate or master's dissertation, and my product is making a video course on my learnings. Step one, choosing your topic. I swear, this is a whole minefield in itself. It is so hard to choose your dissertation topic. The first criteria I need to give you is choose something you're interested in. It is so tempting to do something which sounds cool, but then you actually don't even want to get yourself to do the research. You are spending so many hours on this project, so definitely try and choose something that is not going to be tiresome. One useful way to get through this criteria is to think about all the lectures you've attended, all the seminars, all the topics you've covered, and think about which one was your favourite. Which one was not a bore to pick yourself up and study? Which one was not hard to get yourself to the lecture hall? If you're someone who listens to podcasts, does further reading, reads books, which topics do you keep coming back to? Especially if you're doing it in your free time, then that is proof that you can probably get through a whole bloody dissertation in this topic and not hate it. The second criteria is to set yourself a goal of what your dissertation means to you. Is this just a project you have to complete in order to graduate? If yes, then you don't really need to worry that much. Just do something you enjoy. Just get it done. Get a good grade. Why not? But if this is an opportunity for you to show your future employer an example of a project that you've done in a relevant field, then choose something relevant to the job that you want. For example, one of my friends wants to work in the area of solving the climate crisis. She's studying economics, so then she decided to do a project about the voluntary carbon markets, because this is something that she can show a startup, a future employer who are working in the carbon markets, and just she can prove that she actually knows something about it. Equally, if you want to go to grad school, maybe you can choose a topic relevant to the master's or PhD that you want to do. And third criteria, know your supervisors. If you know you have a supervisor who is incredibly well versed in this one topic, which you're relatively interested in, but you know it could be a good experience with them, then feel free to choose that. It's always hard when you choose a topic that you don't have a professor with relevant expertise in. I think you get a lot less out of the thesis process, so sometimes tailoring your project to the professors on offer is also a good idea. Number four, you don't have to change the world. It is nice, but don't put pressure on yourself, especially an undergraduate, to absolutely revolutionise the entire space of study. Be narrow, be super, super narrow. Find a body of research that interests you. Read all the lit reviews, all the papers, go through the citations, familiarise yourself with the authors in this space, work out what mini questions they are looking at, and then direct your thesis at one of these mini questions. That's all you've got to do. I really recommend using your summers or your free time to just do this. Get to know the space. Often in the discussion section of scholarly articles, they will pose future areas of study or places that they wish there was more literature on, and that is a great place to create a thesis. Be specific, be narrow, be tractable. Okay, so we've got our topic. Congratulations. That was hard. Planning and organisation. Don't you dare start writing your dissertation without spending a lot of time thinking about how you're going to organise the process. Because let me tell you, when you're first reading a few scholarly articles, you're like, oh yeah, I'm doing my research. If you're not saving the reference, the link, the names of the authors, quotes, wow, you're going to have such a tough time because suddenly you'll be scraping the internet, desperately trying to find the article that you once read a year ago. You're going to be pouring through your notes app or your Notion or your physical journal, like all the places where you're scattered, keeping your thesis documents. Create a system from the start. Where are you going to put it? How are you going to organise it? I personally use Notion. I absolutely love it. Would highly recommend to anyone. I'm going to link a thesis template down below. I was inspired by an alumni of my university. I'll link her templates too. So on my Notion, I structured it so I had all the feedback from my supervisor, from professors, all in one place. I had past dissertations from other students that were relevant or interesting. I had a whole section for literature review so that every book, paper, everything I read, I would put here. And I would also structure it by things like theme, date, names of the authors, all of that good stuff. Interesting quotes I could include in my thesis. This is where I set myself clear goals for every month so that I could keep myself on track of where I needed to be in my process. And it's where I started to structure my outline and introduction statements. Finally, on the planning section, make sure you get Identity or Zotero or one of these scholarly article management systems, I think they're called. It basically allows you to click a button every time you're on a scholarly article and it'll save the reference for you and then you can export it to your lovely, gorgeous reference section whenever you need. I write in APA, which is one of the formatting styles. So I save everything in APA. But know your formatting style. Every university is different. Just refer to your handbook. We love a handbook. So we've got our topic, we've got our planning system. Now we get into research. Once you have selected the general topic or theme, it is time to learn everything you can about this niche area of academia. This means speaking to experts to identify the best papers you should be reading, people you should speak to in the space. This means regularly reading scholarly articles and then pouring through the citations to then read those articles, noticing the common themes of questions in the space. Use as many reputable sources as possible as well. So peer reviewed articles. You can start from a popular article like a newspaper, a magazine, and then sometimes they have references where you can go find the scholarly articles and read those. ChatGPT, Bestie is here. You can even ask it for references. You can say like, hey, what are some of the best five papers written in the last five years that are peer reviewed on this topic? And then all of a sudden you're identifying high quality resources. The thing with research is the sooner you start, the better, because sometimes when you research, you realise that your thesis question needs to evolve or needs to include something you haven't previously considered. So the more you can read without pressure, without time constraints, the better. I started the summer before final year, like deeply researching and reading books. And then this is where I made my notion database. So I'm coming into final year really clear on my question, how I'm going to write it, what I'm going to lean on as resources. Now we come to the writing phase. Bloody hell, so much to write. My thesis is currently 26,000 words, which I know is longer than the average undergraduate thesis, but my university expects a lot. So, unideal. So firstly, when you're coming to write, make sure you use the handbook that your university has provided. So things like APA style for me, they'll ask me for a specific structure. So whether that's, you know, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, what do they want? That'll be in there. Constantly use your supervisor. I'm very lucky that I have an amazing supervisor who is an expert in the topic that I'm looking at. I also did my best to develop a relationship with her prior to final year so that when it came to choosing supervisors and supervisors choosing students, I was just there. I was like, hi bestie, like, remember me? But yeah, supervisors make such a difference. I remember when I first started writing, I was so embarrassed to ask for feedback. I would just like hide my work because I'm such a perfectionist and it's so scary when your work is torn apart, especially when you spend a lot of time on it. But my biggest advice is just don't be embarrassed to ask for feedback. I mainly work in a Google doc and I would often at my supervisor with questions like, at prof, what do you think about this section? Or have I misunderstood this article's conclusions? Do you know where else I could look for resources? In terms of planning, I can't recommend enough. Little and often work on this thing, this massive project, little and often. It breaks it down. It makes it feel chill. In my notion page, I broke down every single month with high level goals. Like I will have written the whole methodology section. I will have finished my research by this month. And then I broke that down into every single week, what I had to get done. And that made it feel so chill, the whole process, because as long as I met my weekly goals, I was on track. I didn't need to do more. I was just chilling and it would eventually materialize. Obviously there are so many amazing productivity techniques you can use to help you write. Things like the Pomodoro technique, where you go to a specific place, you put away all your distractions and you set a 25 minute timer and you are only allowed to focus on this one task for these 25 minutes. And then you get a five minute break. And often when you get over the hump of just starting work, you find it's actually a lot easier to continue. One of the best things I did for writing this thesis is choosing an accountability partner at the start of final year. I did this personality test and realized that I am an obliger, which means I do work in order to oblige to others and their perceptions of me. So if I have a deadline, I'm very good at keeping the deadline. But if it's just myself, I might not be as conscientious. Conscientious, is that a word? I think it is. So I was like, I need someone to keep me accountable, someone I respect. So I went through my entire university course list and I found this amazing guy called Moon, who I'm friends with, but also didn't know super well. I, you know, I value his opinion. I think he's hardworking. And we created a recurring co-working session every single week of final year where we go, we meet for like five hours and we just work. And we tell each other every week what we got done and what we still need to get done. And some weeks I wouldn't work on my dissertation apart from in this session. So set yourself up for success, like put these non-negotiable structures in your life to keep you working on this, especially with other people. Also, I know chat GPT can be considered controversial in the realm of academia, but I think it's an amazing tool, not to write your thesis, obviously, but to ask questions, clarifying questions, like what is an opposing argument to the one that I have? Because then you might have all these blind spots that you can't see, but the chat GPT can pick up on and guide your writing process. But honestly, guys, just keep writing, just keep writing because you know what? It is so much easier to go back and edit something you've already written than to write from scratch. It is much easier to look at, you know, a body of text than a blank page. So just keep writing, even if it feels like it's rubbish, it will get better. Just get it out the system, set yourself these goals, keep it going. And I just know you're going to do amazingly. Like the fact that you clicked onto this video means you're really taking the time to question your thesis process and how best you can do it. So I have no doubt that you're like on it, you're going to produce something high quality and great. And yeah, this is so much more than just a dissertation. This is an opportunity to learn how you work, how good you are at keeping to your own self-set deadlines. Like that is self-learning. This process might make you fall out of love with your subject. It might make you reevaluate the type of job that you want to have in the future. It's just a lot of learning, but also such a cool opportunity to add your unique thoughts on a topic into the world. And yeah, I'm super excited for you. If I'm honest, I think for me writing a dissertation has not been nearly as stressful as writing a book. I published a book in second year of university and that was so hard because it was my first time ever doing a big, big project and no one around me was doing one at the time. So I really learnt self-discipline. But I think in final year, everyone is working on their diss. Everyone's a little bit stressed, a little bit behind and there's something really lovely about the togetherness of it all. Like really soak up this time. You're in the bubble of uni. It's a good time to be alive, even if it feels stressful. Yeah, you've got this. My casual magic for today is the fact that there's a blue sky. It has been so gloomy and miserable in Taipei for the last week and I had a cold, it was sick, it was just not, I was not living. And today I really am. So yeah, I'm going to go study with Moon actually, my accountability partner. Let me know if this was helpful. Please share your tips down below and have a great day. Bye.

• Schools & departments

Dr Iain Lauchlan (BA, PhD)

Senior Lecturer; History

Contact details

• Email: [email protected]
• School of History, Classics and Archaeology

Room 00M.09, William Robertson Wing, Old Medical School, Teviot Place

Availability

Mon 15.00–16.00 Tues 15.00–16.00

I was born and raised somewhere obscure in the middle of England. I received my BA (1993) and PhD (1998) from the University of Leeds. My PhD thesis and first book were on the tsarist secret police based on research in the newly opened Russian state archives. After this I took up a research fellowship at Helsinki University in 1999, which thanks to Finnish Academy funding provided me with access to the former Communist Party and KGB archives in Moscow. This led to a British Academy Post-doctoral Fellowship at St Cross College, Oxford from 2001 to 2004 and after that a lectureship at Stirling University. I was appointed to my current post as Lecturer in History at the University of Edinburgh in January 2010.

Teaching & PhD supervision

Undergraduate teaching.

Themes in Modern European History

History in Practice

Making of the Modern World

Revolutionary Russia, 1861-1921

Stalin’s Russia, 1921-1941

Areas of interest for supervision

Name - Degree - Thesis topic - Supervision type

• Galy, Ariane - PhD - Stalin and Stalinism in Western Historiography - Joint
• Kokosalakis, Yiannis - PhD - The Communist Party in Soviet Society in the 1930s - Primary
• Sambells, Chelsea - PhD - A Study of the Allied Evacuation Scheme of French, Belgian and Yugoslavian Children to Switzerland, 1942-1945 - Secondary  

Research summary

• Nineteenth Century
• Twentieth Century & After

Research interests

Russian history, particularly the Russian Revolution and the Stalin era. Russia’s relations with the West. The history of intelligence, conspiracy and espionage.

Project activity

I am currently writing a biography of the founder of the Soviet security police and poster-boy for the Putin era, Felix Dzerzhinsky. In my next project I will be looking at the influence of the Kremlin doctors on the conspiratorial worldview of the Communist leadership and the use medicine as an instrument of repression in the USSR.

Research projects

A history of the Stalin revolution: I am working on a political, social and cultural history of the Stalin era before the Second World War. My interests in particular are focussed on the ‘other Stalinists’: both the allies and victims of the leader, the precursors and pioneers of the Stalinist system of government. I have received funding from the British Academy and Carnegie Trust for research in Moscow on this project.

Publications

The list below is a subset of the information held on the University of Edinburgh PURE system, and includes Books, Chapters, Articles and Conference contributions. For a full list, including details of other publication types (e.g. reviews), please see the Edinburgh Research Explorer page for Dr Iain Lauchlan .

Konstantin Zeldovich, PhD

During my undergraduate and graduate studies under supervision of Prof. Alexei Khokhlov I was investigating the properties of polyelectrolyte systems with spatial inhomogeneities, such as microphase separation in polyelectrolyte gels and solutions, swelling properties of inhomogeneous charged gels, and the phenomena of polyelectrolyte adsorption and multilayer formation. In 2001, I have defended my PhD thesis, "Theory of inhomogeneous polyelectrolyte gels and adsorption layers".

My key achievements in computer area are the creation of the first dedicated computing cluster in Moscow State University (1998, together with Dr. Viktor Ivanov), and the development of realtime data processing applications, including the popular Oscilloscope for Windows (freeware).