adviser of dissertation

Work With Us

Private Coaching

Done-For-You

Short Courses

Client Reviews

Free Resources

Dissertation Advisor 101

How to get the most from the student-supervisor relationship

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | January 2024

Many students feel a little intimidated by the idea of having to work with a research advisor (or supervisor) to complete their dissertation or thesis. Similarly, many students struggle to “connect” with their advisor and feel that the relationship is somewhat strained or awkward. But this doesn’t need to be the case!

In this post, we’ll share five tried and tested tips to help you get the most from this relationship and pave the way for a smoother dissertation writing process.

Overview: Working With Your Advisor

• Clarify everyone’s roles on day one
• Establish (and stick to) a regular communication cycle
• Develop a clear project plan upfront
• Be proactive in engaging with problems
• Navigate conflict like a diplomat

1. Clarify roles on day one

Each university will have slightly different expectations, rules and norms in terms of the research advisor’s role. Similarly, each advisor will have their own unique way of doing things. So, it’s always a good idea to begin the engagement process by clearly defining the roles and expectations in your relationship.

In practical terms, we suggest that you initiate a conversation at the very start of the engagement to discuss your goals, their expectations, and how they would like to work with you. Of course, you might not like what you hear in this conversation. However, this sort of candid conversation will help you get on the same page as early as possible and set the stage for a successful partnership.

To help you get started, here are some questions that you might consider asking in your initial conversation:

• How often would you like to meet and for how long?
• What should I do to prepare for each meeting?
• What aspects of my work will you comment on (and what won’t you cover)?
• Which key decisions should I seek your approval for beforehand?
• What common mistakes should I try to avoid from the outset?
• How can I help make this partnership as effective as possible?
• My academic goals are… Do you have any suggestions at this stage to help me achieve this?

As you can see, these types of questions help you get a clear idea of how you’ll work together and how to get the most from the relatively limited face time you’ll have.

Need a helping hand?

2. Establish a regular communication cycle

Just like in any relationship, effective communication is crucial to making the student-supervisor relationship work. So, you should aim to establish a regular meeting schedule and stick to it. Don’t cancel or reschedule appointments with your advisor at short notice, or do anything that suggests you don’t value their time. Fragile egos are not uncommon in the academic world, so it’s important to clearly demonstrate that you value and respect your supervisor’s time and effort .

Practically speaking, be sure to prepare for each meeting with a clear agenda , including your progress, challenges, and any questions you have. Be open and honest in your communication, but most importantly, be receptive to your supervisor’s feedback . Ultimately, part of their role is to tell you when you’re missing the mark. So, don’t become upset or defensive when they criticise a specific aspect of your work.

Always remember that your research advisor is criticising your work, not you personally . It’s never easy to take negative feedback, but this is all part of the learning journey that takes place alongside the research journey.

3. Have a clear project plan

Few things will impress your supervisor more than a well-articulated, realistic plan of action (aka, a project plan). Investing the time to develop this shows that you take your project (and by extension, the relationship) seriously. It also helps your supervisor understand your intended timeline, which allows the two of you to better align your schedules .

In practical terms, you need to develop a project plan with achievable goals . A detailed Gantt chart can be a great way to do this. Importantly, you’ll need to break down your thesis or dissertation into a collection of practical, manageable steps , and set clear timelines and milestones for each. Once you’ve done that, you should regularly review and adjust this plan with your supervisor to ensure that you remain on track.

Of course, it’s unlikely that you’ll stick to your plan 100% of the time (there are always unexpected twists and turns in a research project. However, this plan will lay a foundation for effective collaboration between yourself and your supervisor. An imperfect plan beats no plan at all.

4. Engage with problems proactively

One surefire way to quickly annoy your advisor is to pester them every time you run into a problem in your dissertation or thesis. Unexpected challenges are par for the course when it comes to research – how you deal with them is what makes the difference.

When you encounter a problem, resist the urge to immediately send a panicked email to your supervisor – no matter how massive the issue may seem (at the time). Instead, take a step back and assess the situation as holistically as possible. Force yourself to sit with the issue for at least a few hours to ensure that you have a clear, accurate assessment of the issue at hand. In most cases, a little time, distance and deep breathing will reveal that the problem is not the existential threat it initially seemed to be.

When contacting your supervisor, you should ideally present both the problem and one or two potential solutions . The latter is the most important part here. In other words, you need to show that you’ve engaged with the issue and applied your mind to finding potential solutions. Granted, your solutions may miss the mark. However, providing some sort of solution beats impulsively throwing the problem at your supervisor and hoping that they’ll save the day.

Simply put, mishaps and mini-crises in your research journey present an opportunity to demonstrate your initiative and problem-solving skills – not a reason to lose your cool and outsource the problem to your supervisor.

5. Navigate conflict like a diplomat 

As with any partnership, there’s always the possibility of some level of disagreement or conflict arising within the student-supervisor relationship. Of course, you can drastically reduce the likelihood of this happening by implementing some of the points we mentioned earlier. Neverthless, if a serious disagreement does arise between you and your supervisor, it’s absolutely essential that you approach it with professionalism and respect . Never let it escalate into a shouting contest.

In practical terms, it’s important to communicate your concerns as they arise (don’t let things simmer for too long). Simultaneously, it’s essential that you remain open to understanding your supervisor’s perspective – don’t become entrenched in your position. After all, you are the less experienced researcher within this duo.

Keep in mind that a lot of context is lost in text-based communication , so it can often be a good idea to schedule a short call to discuss your concerns or points of contention, rather than sending a 3000-word email essay. When going this route, be sure to take the time to prepare a clear, cohesive argument beforehand – don’t just “thought vomit” on your supervisor.

In the event that you do have a significant disagreement with your advisor, remember that the goal is to find a solution that serves your project (not your ego). This often requires compromise and flexibility. A “win at all costs” mindset is definitely not suitable here. Ultimately, you need to solve the problem, while still maintaining the relationship .

If you feel that you have already exhausted all possible avenues and still can’t find an acceptable middle ground, you can of course reach out to your university to ask for their assistance. However, this should be the very last resort . Running to your university every time there’s a small disagreement will not serve you well.

Recap: Key Takeaways

To sum up, a fruitful student-supervisor relationship hinges on clear role definition , effective and regular communication , strategic planning , proactive engagement , and professional conflict resolution .

Remember, your dissertation supervisor is there to help you, but you still need to put in the work . In many cases, they’ll also be the first marker of your work, so it really pays to put in the effort and build a strong, functional relationship with them.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

• Code of Ethics
• Dissertation Editing
• Dissertation Coaching
• Free Consultation

Choosing a Thesis Advisor: A Complete Guide

One of the most important choices that you will make about your dissertation or thesis happens before you write a single word. Choosing a thesis advisor or dissertation advisor (often referred to as a dissertation chair) will have a significant impact on your entire dissertation writing experience, and for many years to come. For many doctoral students, their thesis advisor is their single greatest influence in graduate school. 

Selecting a thesis advisor is a big decision with far-reaching implications. The stakes are very high, and it is imperative to choose your thesis advisor wisely. There are many factors to consider when choosing a thesis advisor, from expertise to personality, and it pays to think carefully and weigh your options before approaching a faculty member to chair your dissertation committee . While there are subtle differences between a dissertation chair and a thesis advisor, we’ll focus on the commonalities in this article.

These are commonly asked questions about selecting a thesis advisor: 

• What does a thesis advisor do? 
• How should I choose my thesis advisor?
• What makes a faculty member a good thesis advisor? 
• What if it doesn’t work out with my thesis advisor? 

Thesis Advisor Responsibilities

While writing a dissertation is a largely solitary pursuit, a good thesis advisor will be with you every step of the way. While you are very much in the driver’s seat, it is your thesis advisor’s job to keep you off the guardrails. And deploy the airbag, if necessary. There are a few purposes that your thesis advisor will serve during your time together. 

Guidance . While the dissertation process is new to you, your thesis advisor will know it very well. She will help you navigate the obstacles and pitfalls that have derailed many projects–department politics, university regulations, funding, research opportunities, etc. Your thesis advisor will also serve as a sounding board as you distill the nebulous concept of your research project into a fully-formed idea that you can move forward with. 

Organization . A good thesis advisor will run a tight ship and keep your dissertation project moving like clockwork. As a researcher, it’s very easy to get lost in the minutiae of the literature, and it’s not difficult to find yourself trapped down a rabbit hole of scholarship. Regular milestones set by your thesis advisor are a great way to stay on track and maintain forward momentum. 

Mentorship. While an effective thesis advisor will ensure that you see your project to fruition, a great one will be with you for decades. Though I graduated with my Ph.D. in 2012 and I’m now an associate professor myself, my thesis advisor remains a guiding light in my career. Your thesis advisor can be a cornerstone of your professional network. 

Choosing a Thesis Advisor

So, how do you select a faculty member to chair your dissertation committee? With extreme care. Once you have set your sights on a dissertation chair or thesis advisor, the next step is the Big Ask. I remember being very nervous to approach the faculty member who became my chair– it seemed like such an imposition, but, as a grad student in her department, I was already on her radar. Keep in mind, your faculty members are expecting to be asked to chair dissertation committees, and they may even be a little flattered that you chose them. 

While chairing and serving on dissertation committees is a requirement for the tenured and senior faculty members in your department, it’s a lot of work. Make no mistake: accepting the role of your dissertation chair makes them nervous, too. As a faculty member, I can say with absolute certainty that a good dissertation chair will be almost as invested in your dissertation as you are. 

What Makes a Strong Thesis Advisor?

There exists a gulf between what many students desire in a dissertation chair or thesis advisor and what they actually need. While there may be a temptation to approach one of your department’s superstar faculty members to chair your committee, this may not serve you in the long term. Faculty members who have made a name for themselves through an abundance of publications, grants, awards, and conference appearances typically have jam-packed schedules, and it may be difficult for them to make you and your dissertation a priority. 

A safer bet that is likely to have a more rewarding outcome is to work with a faculty member who has already shown enthusiasm for your work. Select a thesis advisor who makes time for you, and one who always responds to your emails. This is the person you want in your corner during the sometimes stressful journey of researching and writing a dissertation. Also, it never hurts to spend some time talking to potential dissertation chairs or dissertation advisors. Get all of your questions answered, and then make a decision. 

What If It Doesn’t Work Out?

The possibility that your thesis advisor is a bad fit for your project or is incompatible for some other reason is a worst-case scenario that lurks in the furthest reaches of every graduate student’s mind. There’s no way to sugarcoat it: this is not a good situation to be in, and it can derail dissertations. The soundest strategy for dealing with an internecine conflict with your thesis advisor is prevention. 

This is why it is vital to do your homework and put a lot of thought into choosing your thesis advisor. Find someone you are compatible with and make sure you’re on the same page. Check in with them regularly, and keep them updated. Clear communication is a great way to ensure a solid partnership with your dissertation chair. Don’t forget, your dissertation chair should also be making your success a priority. You should be comfortable enough to ask questions and let them know what’s on your mind. 

The good news is that a bad fit isn’t likely to happen. Most grad students have a completely workable relationship with their dissertation chairs, and for many it turns into a long friendship built on mutual respect and admiration. Personally, every time I serve on a doctoral student’s dissertation committee, I feel a tremendous amount of pride and satisfaction when they take their place in the academic world. It’s truly an honor to help them achieve such a major milestone in their academic career, and I’m delighted to be part of it. 

Related posts:

Courtney Watson, Ph.D.

Courtney Watson, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of English at Radford University Carilion, in Roanoke, Virginia. Her areas of expertise include undergraduate and graduate curriculum development for writing courses in the health sciences and American literature with a focus on literary travel, tourism, and heritage economies. Her writing and academic scholarship has been widely published in places that include  Studies in American Culture ,  Dialogue , and  The Virginia Quarterly Review . Her research on the integration of humanities into STEM education will be published by Routledge in an upcoming collection. Dr. Watson has also been nominated by the State Council for Higher Education of Virginia’s Outstanding Faculty Rising Star Award, and she is a past winner of the National Society of Arts & Letters Regional Short Story Prize, as well as institutional awards for scholarly research and excellence in teaching. Throughout her career in higher education, Dr. Watson has served in faculty governance and administration as a frequent committee chair and program chair. As a higher education consultant, she has served as a subject matter expert, an evaluator, and a contributor to white papers exploring program development, enrollment research, and educational mergers and acquisitions.

Comments are closed.

• Skip to Content
• Catalog Home
• Institution Home
• Graduate Catalog /
• Academic Resources /
• Advising & Mentoring PhD Students /

Choosing a Dissertation Advisor

Introduction.

While some graduate groups may assign an advisor to a student upon admission to the program, in many graduate groups the responsibility for finding a dissertation advisor rests with the student. The choice of a faculty member who will supervise the dissertation work required to fulfill degree requirements is one of the most critical decisions a graduate student will make. A student will spend several years working with the faculty member of choice, and that choice will significantly affect the direction of the student’s career. Choosing a dissertation advisor, therefore, is an extremely important decision for doctoral students, although it is not immutable, as will be discussed later.

A student undertaking dissertation work needs an advisor who will be not only academically competent in a particular area but also willing to act as the student’s advocate when necessary. It is important that the student be able to work and communicate effectively with the advisor and not feel overwhelmed or intimidated in the relationship. Dissertation work can be lonely and isolating, and support from an advisor can be a crucial connection.  Each student requires the guidance of someone who will stimulate thought, who has sufficient interest in the student’s topic to produce new insights jointly, and who will challenge the student to think in a novel manner about the research.

Obtaining Information on Potential Advisors

Advisors generally serve as the dissertation supervisor. Students should be familiar with the University rules about who can supervise dissertation research and serve on a dissertation committee.  Several resources and strategies can help students identify an appropriate faculty advisor, as follows.

The graduate group website or handbook is a valuable source of information on potential advisors. Many graduate groups have developed websites that profile affiliated faculty members, including their areas of research, recent publications, and other academic activities. Literature searches can provide further information on the publications and preferred journals of particular faculty members. The graduate group chair can also provide valuable advice on potential advisors and can help students to become familiar with any specific graduate group policies on supervision.

Students can get to know potential advisors by taking a course, doing a lab rotation, acting as a teaching assistant, and/or attending seminars and other presentations by the faculty member.

Graduate students currently working with the potential advisor are an invaluable source of information. Students who are working or have worked with a particular advisor can be asked about their experience with that advisor and about the advisor’s expectations and working methods. Getting to know these students is also useful because anyone choosing to work with a faculty advisor would likely have close, future interactions with their students. Talking to multiple students is always encouraged given the possibly strong and differing opinions one might hear.

Students should make an appointment to meet potential advisors. Meeting a potential advisor is an essential step in determining whether a faculty member would be a good fit in terms of mentoring and interpersonal style and research interested. The following is a list of issues that might be covered in such a meeting: 

• How many graduate students do you advise? (Students may not want to pick a faculty member who has too many students already.)
• Typically, how often do you meet with your students?
• Typically, how much time do you expect students to take to complete their dissertation?
• How will we agree upon my research topic?
• Are there sufficient funds available for the research project?
• What will be the sources of my stipend/funding? What are ways you can provide assistance for finding additional funding if/when my stipend expires?
• What level of independence is expected of your graduate students?
• Is there any specific knowledge I need to have before starting to work with you?
• Will I have the opportunity to attend conferences? Publish papers? Present work at colloquia? Are there funds available for me to do so?
• Are you planning a sabbatical leave soon? If so, what arrangements for continued supervision will be made during your absence?
• What opportunities would I have in this area of research when I graduate?
• How do you typically assist students on the job market?
• Will guidelines be drawn up for working together?
• How will I receive feedback on my progress?

These questions are designed to help the student and the potential advisor determine whether a good match exists. Where appropriate, the student may also want to ask about the order of authorship on publications and intellectual property issues.

For students who are able to pick an advisor, the choice of a dissertation advisor is a decision to be made with a great deal of care and consideration. Discussion of the topics listed above will also give faculty members a sense of what students expect in terms of meetings, feedback, turn-around time on submitted work, etc. Taking time to explore these issues should result in a productive relationship for both student and advisor that culminates in a dissertation of original research, completed within a reasonable period of time.

Changing Advisors

There may be situations in which a student must change advisors. Some situations are beyond the student’s control; for example, when an advisor leaves the University or otherwise becomes unavailable. In other situations, the student may want to choose a different advisor; for example, if the focus of the research project changes to something outside of the current advisor’s expertise, or if work styles do not mesh well.

In these latter situations, students should understand that while there can be risks in changing advisors, it usually can be negotiated in a positive manner. Students deciding to change advisors should be sure to consult the graduate group for any specific policies and procedures that apply and be sure to ascertain if funding may change under a new advisor. Students should always be professional and respectful in interactions with the current advisor and potential new advisor and be certain that the proposed new advisor is willing and able to add them as a new advisee before discussing such a change with the current advisor. Students should focus discussions on interests and goals and not on negative incidents or difficulties. The potential new advisor, as well as leaders or other members of the graduate group, may have advice regarding how to broach this change with the current advisor.

Print Options

Print this page.

The PDF will include all information unique to this page.

A PDF of the entire 2024-25 catalog.

A PDF of the 2024-25 Undergraduate catalog.

A PDF of the 2024-25 Graduate catalog.

Social Sciences

This initial phase obviously revealed a stronger emphasis on familiarity among faculty. To further clarify this point, the faculty chosen were those that taught mainly the research methods courses during the first year. Relationships developed among the faculty as did preferences toward methodological choices for the dissertation. The area from these cohorts was the research background and publications of the faculty. Since this Instructional Management/Leadership Ph.D. program serves educators, administrators, health professionals, military, corporate trainers, etc., an administrator would select a faculty member with an administrative background, or a health professional would select a faculty member with a background in the health profession. The last category was a candidate talking to other prior cohort members relative to selecting an adviser. This represented a lesser number, but was also different from the other two categories since it relied primarily on the perception of other people in the selection process. There were a limited number of students in each cohort who chose their adviser after interacting at the evening buffet dinner with doctoral teaching faculty and students, as depicted in the category of Other . Mainly, the discussion at the dinner with doctoral faculty focused on the dissertation process and the work with the adviser. This individual meeting provided an opportunity for each cohort member to express his/her progress in the program. It was stated by the director of the program that in his experience, coursework is seldom the problem of students having trouble in the program. It is usually an issue with the capstone project, the dissertation, or the dissertation process. It is worth noting the connection the connection here to a finding by Knox, Burkard, Janecek, Pruitt, Fuller, and Hill (2011):

We cannot assert causality in either direction (effect of relationship on dissertation; effect of dissertation on relationship) but also cannot ignore the pattern: positive dissertation experiences were characterized by good relationships between adviser and student; problematic dissertations were often characterized by poor relationships. (p. 65)

By the conclusion of the second year of formal study, cohort members had two full semesters to work with their dissertation adviser. Hence, the researchers looked at the follow-up with these same cohorts but conducted, as previously noted, individual meetings with cohort members. The objective was to ascertain if the students were making progress in the dissertation process with their advisers. In this IML Ph.D. program, during the Fall of the 2 nd year, each semester correlates with the chapters of the dissertation which serves as a timeline. For instance, the Fall semester would correlate with Chapter 1 (Introduction) of the dissertation. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) would correlate with Spring, 2 nd year, then Summer of the 3 rd year would correlate with Chapter 3 (Methodology). Chapter 4 (Results) would be in the Fall of the 3 rd year while Chapter 5 (Findings and Conclusions) would be in the Spring of the 3 rd year in the program. It should be noted that this represents a completion schedule that is not representative of all candidates in the program.

In the discussions with Cohort 8A/8B, the group who graduated in May of 2015, there was a common thread among the group. Even though over 40% had earlier comments in year two and year three about their work and relationships with their advisers, any concerns or issues were resolved when these students completed the dissertation enabling them to graduate. Almost 100% of the students recognized their adviser in the Acknowledgement page of the dissertation. So, any ill will or criticism that may have existed earlier in the relationship, dissipated when the students graduated. All the graduates felt that this was a learning experience and that they understood more about themselves and the process in general from this experience. In short, the importance of completion and subsequent graduation would overshadow any negative feelings between the student and adviser. This is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Cohort 8A/8B

In Cohort 9, the group had completed their second year with one year into the dissertation process. Students in this cohort were at various stages of their dissertation. Using the same meeting procedures as with Cohorts 8A and 8B, a researcher met with members of Cohort 9. The responses from this cohort were as follows in Table 3:

Table 3: Cohort 9

Once again, students voiced similar comments on the role of their advisers. Although less negative comments were made by this cohort, the nature of these comments would indicate much different sentiments from the beginning of year 2 until the end of the same year, at least by 30% of the cohort. As noted earlier, issues such as meeting time, expected quick responses on submitted papers, and perceived relationship problems between adviser and candidate were not considered by students in cohorts 8A/8B and cohort 9.

Finally, Cohort 10 selected advisers during the summer of 2015 for the IML Ph.D. program. As noted there are a total of 18 students in this cohort. The same process of providing biographical information on faculty followed by a meet and greet buffet dinner was standard introductory procedure. Given the time frame of less than two months, these students responded in a typical manner by choosing faculty they were familiar with from their coursework or faculty who most impressed them at the dinner buffet. After meeting with each candidate to give faculty adviser/committee assignments, this group, as others, was pleased to hear that they were able to secure the adviser of choice. They, like others, were delighted to begin the process of starting the dissertation.

Discussion, Findings, and Conclusions

From a review of the three cohorts, it was clear that all three groups similar to earlier cohorts in this program, based their choice of adviser primarily on familiarity and first meeting impressions from the buffet dinner event. Familiarity could be explained in terms of selecting a faculty member based on past coursework with that faculty member. In many cases, it was first year doctoral faculty or, in some cases, doctoral faculty who had previously had a student in an undergraduate or graduate course. In should be noted that a percentage of our students pursue the doctoral degree after completing the Instructional Management/Leadership master’s degree at our university. A few students based decisions on the background of the faculty member and that person’s research area while some talked with previous cohort members. Despite preliminary discussions with the cohort in term of the process and shared past commentary from other students in the program, these students were still not focused on what might be considered the most important attributes and qualities of an adviser in the dissertation relationship. In traditional programs, students many times have the opportunity to work more closely with faculty or, at least, have the opportunity to have completed coursework with the majority of doctoral faculty who would serve as advisers.

While the doctoral faculty have a wide range of backgrounds in leadership including military, government, education, and health care, there are limitations on the director that relate directly to the faculty contract. By our contract, each faculty member should be assigned at least one doctoral student and subsequently, would serve on two committees. There is flexibility relative to faculty having more than one student. In the past the mix of students noted earlier in the description of makeup and background of the program participants provided a level of variety for student choice. To illustrate, a public school principal would probably lean toward working with a faculty member who was a former superintendent of schools. We have others who been a part of the corporate, military, higher education, or health professions. However, in some cases, if there was imbalance or over representation in one area (professional background), this might also hamper the ability of students to choose an adviser in their specific field.

The major finding of this brief study was that there was a disconnect between the entry selection criteria, which was somewhat superficial, and the reality of what many of the students really needed in an adviser. Although personal characteristics may be initially important, the complexity of the dissertation adviser role cannot be minimized. During the writing of the dissertation, some students may need more prodding than others. Some may need more encouragement. This relationship should be shaped into a mentoring role as in cognitive apprenticeship where learning occurs through guided experience. Since all faculty advisers completed a dissertation, this can be both a discovery process and a teaching process as in the Actor-Network theory which adviser and advisee are networked to the degree that both adviser and advisee learn from one another. Advisers not only learn new material but also gain new ideas and insights into their own future research agenda. Other criteria described in the literature such as common research interests, time factors, dissertation experience, etc. all have relevance that certainly go beyond familiarity, preliminary first time meetings, and the experience of others. This study’s researchers suggest that the title of adviser-mentor be applied to faculty supporting the work of doctoral students in the program, so as to emphasize the role of faculty in the success of doctoral students.

Also, based on the responses from candidates and the related research, this study’s researchers propose the following specific recommendations as a way of addressing the adviser selection process. These recommendations are aligned with Ghefali’s (2003) expansion of Collins, Holum, and Brown’s (1991) Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model:

These recommendations are ways of defining a more substantive and research-supported approach of selecting an adviser. The alignment of this study’s recommendations to Ghefali’s (2003) expanded Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model provides adviser-mentors with a rationale for implementing those recommendations and perhaps a framework that can be generalized to similar programs.

The goal is to develop a strong, nurturing relationship between the adviser-mentor and the student. It goes beyond the simple - pick who you know or pick who impresses you approach that is too often chosen by students. It enables doctoral students to engage more frequently and in a more professional, academic relationship with a possible adviser-mentor. Better informing students early on in the process is obviously a preferred first step. These doctoral students will be able to make more informed decisions relative to choice. Faculty, on the other hand, will also have a better opportunity to connect with these doctoral students, especially those faculty who traditional taught courses in the second and third years of the program.

As Joyce (2016) creatively suggests to those wrestling with the improvement of doctoral programs and dissertation advising, “create a space where both parties can exist together as actors who jointly create knowledge for their profession” (p. 412). If we can follow that simple suggestion, along with the recommendations of this brief study, then the choice of door number one, two, or three may be much easier with greater residual benefit, especially for doctoral students participating in today’s fast-track doctoral programs.

Adams, Howard G. and Ram, Ashwin (1992). How to choose an adviser . April, 13, 2015. Retrieved online at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/faculty/ashwin/wisdom/how-to-chose-an-adviser.html

Barnes, B. & Austin, A. (2009). The role of doctoral advisers: A look at advising from the adviser’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33 , 297-315.

Bieber, J.P. and Worley, L.K. (2006, 2010). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate students’ perspectives . The Journal of Higher Education , 77 (6) 1009-1035.

Brabazon, T. (2016). Winter is coming: Doctoral supervision in the neoliberal university. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 3 (1).

Callon, M. (1982) Action Network Theory . http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm- binaries/5222_Ritzer__Entries_beginning_with_A__[1].pdf

Collins, A., Holum, A., and Brown, J.S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible . May 15, 2015. Article retrieved online.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2013). The landscape of qualitative research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

Gardner, S. (2013). The challenges of first-generation doctoral students. New Directions for Higher Education , 162 , 43-54.  

Gearity, B. & Mertz, N. (2012). From “bitch” to “mentor”: A doctoral student’s story of self-change and mentoring. The Qualitative Report , 17 , 1-27.

Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and the contextualization of learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online Learning , 4 .

Halse, C. & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79-92.

Herzig, A. H.(2002). Where have all the students gone? Participation of doctoral students in authentic activity as a necessary condition for persistence toward the Ph.D. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 50: 177-212.

Hineman, J. and Semich, G. (2013). Cognitive apprenticeship and the support of students in non-traiditional cohort-based doctoral education programs. Proceedings for the Society for Information Technology in Education Conference , March 25-29, 2013, New Orleans, LA.

Holley, K. & Caldwell, M. (2012). The challenges of designing and implementing a doctoral student mentoring program. Innovative Higher Education, 37 , 243-253.

Holman, Zachary C. (2002). Selecting the right Ph.D. adviser: A guide . Article retrieved online August 5, 2015. http://faculty.engineering.asu.edu/holman/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Choosing-an-adviser-v2-ZH.pdf

Jaeger, A., Sandman, L. & Kim, J. (2011). Advising graduate students doing community-engaged dissertation research: The adviser-advisee relationship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15 (4), 5-25.

Joyce, P. (2016). “The thing itself”: Using literary criticism techniques in teaching qualitative research through dissertation advising. Qualitative Social Work, 15 (3), 407-413.

Killeya, Mathew (2008). The Ph.D. journey: How to choose a good supervisor. New Scientist . Issue 2644, February 2008.

Kim, Y. (2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising. Journal of Research in International Education, 6 (2), 171-193.

Knox, S., Burkard, A., Janecek, J., Pruitt, N., Fuller, S. & Hill, C. (2011). Positive and problematic dissertation experiences: The faculty perspective. Counseling in Psychology Quarterly, 24 (1), 55-69.

Knox, S., Sokol, J., Schlosser, L., Inman, A., Nilsson, J. & Wang, Y. (2013). International advisees’ perspectives in the advising relationship in counseling psychology doctoral programs. International Perspectives in Psychology; Research, Practice, Consultation, 2 (1), 45-61

Law, J. (2007). Actor neywork theory and material semiotics . Article retrieved online April 27, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf

Linden, J., Ohlin, M. & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in Ph.D. education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 639-662.

Martinsuo, M. and Turkulainen, V. (2011). Personal commitment, support and progress in doctoral studies, Studies in Higher Education , 36 (1), 103-120.

Murakami-Ramhalo, E., Militello, M. & Piert, J. (2013). A view form within: How doctoral students in educational administration develop research knowledge and identity. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (2), 256-271.

Noy, S. & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisers: is there systematic disadavantage to mentorship? The Journal of Higher Education, 83 (6), 876-914.

Patterson, D. (2010). Your students are your legacy. Communication of the ACM, 52 (3), 30-33.

Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2000). How to get a Ph.D. : A handbook for students and their supervisors (3 rd ed.), Buckingham, UK; Open University Press.

Sangganjanavanich, V. & Magnuson, S. (2009). Counselor Education & Supervision, 48 , 194-203.

Schlosser, L. & Kahn, J. (2007). Dyadic perspectives on adviser-advisee relationships in counseling psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 211-217.

Stark, Miriam (2013). Choosing a dissertation or thesis/adviser mentor . Article retrieved online August 3, 2015. http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/graduate/agsa/choosing-adviser-mentor.pdf

Titus, S. & Ballou, J. (2011). Faculty members’ perceptions of advising versus mentoring: Does the name matter? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1267-1281.

Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zhao, C., Golde, C., & McKormick, A. (2007) More than a signature How adviser choice and adviser behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction . Journal of Further and Higher Education , 31 (3), 263-281.

Save Citation »    (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager)

Hineman, J. M., & Semich, G. (2017). "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal , 9 (03). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal 9.03 (2017). < http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588 >

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal 9 (03), http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

HINEMAN, J. M., & SEMICH, G. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal [Online], 9. Available: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

John M. Hineman graduated in 2011 with a PhD in Education from Robert Morris University .

George Semich , Ed.D., is the Director of the IML PhD Program at Robert Morris University .

From the Inquiries Journal Blog

Related reading, monthly newsletter signup.

The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog.

Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal

Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.

Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal 's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit

Latest in Education

What are you looking for, from our blog.

Inquiries Journal

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Choosing the Right Advisor

Search Grad Grow

One of the most important decisions you will make as a graduate student is choosing a dissertation advisor. This article from Inside Higher Ed (and this one from the Chronicle of Higher Education ) address this vital decision and offer some guidance on how to select an advisor, including what good and bad things to look for. From enthusiasm for teaching and mentoring, similar research interests, and management style, these tips from these two articles can help you build a framework by which you can evaluate and find the advisor most suited to you. 

View Website

Grad Grow Competencies