what is the role of a phd advisor

What’s a PhD Advisor?

• Katie Baker
• November 27, 2023

PhD advisors, otherwise known as doctoral supervisors or dissertation advisors, play pivotal roles in helping doctoral students from the research phase of their PhD to preparing for their oral examination (PhD viva). Naturally, the academic faculty members play pivotal roles in guiding doctoral students through the labyrinth of their research journey. 

Doctoral students may only have one PhD advisor, but advisors take on a myriad of roles as they act in the capacity of a critic, mentor, and when it is called for, collaborator.

There are many intricacies to the multifaceted role; in this article, we will discuss the academic and non-academic influences advisors have on a doctoral student’s tenure. Even though every doctoral student and advisor works differently, on this page, we will also cover how to make the most out of the mentor-student dynamic and the limits on how much assistance a PhD advisor can provide.

What is a PhD Advisor?

Though the role of a PhD advisor may be many-sided and adaptable, in simple terms, they are there as guides to keep you on the right trajectory through your experience as a doctoral student.

It is their role to ensure your work meets credible academic standards, both to help you pass your oral examinations at the end of the PhD journey and to ensure a high calibre of research output for the university. Advisors also assist in aligning doctoral research with the department’s objectives, which, in turn, helps to attract a steady stream of research funding. 

However, as a doctoral student, you will need to bear in mind that you are expected to work on your own initiative, create your own deadlines, and organise your own schedule between checking in with your advisor and submitting written work at regular intervals. Always remember your advisor is there to help you overcome your hurdles, not do all the leg work for you. 

How Do PhD Advisors Support Doctoral Students?

As a PhD student, you should consider your advisors as the first port of call for all research-related queries. Aside from their obligation and responsibility to assist your research, which they took on when they agreed to become your supervisor, they are also experts in your academic field and have credible experience in researching it. More often than not, supervisors will have already assisted other students through their doctorate degrees and have a strong publication track record. 

As experienced and esteemed as the best PhD supervisors are, always remember that they are not experts in your particular topic – no one is, hence why your research proposal was accepted by the university.

It isn’t uncommon to find that advisors provide more assistance in the earlier stages of the PhD research process, whereas as your expertise starts to outshine your advisor’s, you will need to become more self-reliant, as the onus is on you to direct the line of inquiry through your research.

Here are just a few of the ways advisors can assist:

Advisors can help you to steer clear of academic ground that has already been covered to ensure your PhD presents original and creative knowledge.

•     Advisors can help to refine research questions and develop the methodology you will use to answer your research questions.
•     Advisors will provide feedback on your work at regular intervals to ensure that if you do veer off track, you will be back on the right course before you waste too much time exploring dead ends.
•     Advisors will rigorously challenge your assumptions before pushing you to delve deeper into the research area they have academic credibility in.
•     Advisors can point you in the right direction of valuable literature and help you find the right place to position your work within the academic conversation.
•     After you have submitted your thesis, your advisor should help you to prepare for your oral examination by arranging mock oral examinations and getting you accustomed to defending your thesis. 

In addition to in-person meetings where your work is discussed, the basic expectations of a PhD supervisor also include reading drafts of your thesis and responding to your emails within a reasonable timeframe. 

 While some doctoral students want to meet their supervisor every month, others are happy to meet once every semester. There’s no hard and fast or one-size-fits-all rule for the best arrangements to make with your supervisor; the most important thing is to decide on a schedule which suits you.

Non-Academic Support

PhD advisors can provide invaluable networking support by introducing you to academics in your field, making you aware of conferences worth attending and encouraging collaborations, which may extend beyond your PhD. Even after you become a doctor, it can still be the case of “it’s not what you know, it is who you know”!

Aside from the academic support a PhD advisor provides, advisors should also be tuned into the non-academic needs of their research proteges. After all, the PhD path is not solely an intellectual challenge; it can present itself as an emotional and psychological marathon. If you encounter problems that seem insurmountable, your advisor is one of the best-placed people to prove that there is a way around the roadblocks, whatever they may be. 

PhD advisors aren’t only there if you hit a brick wall with your research, they can also assist with challenges unique to you and adopt a more holistic approach to their mentorship, should your academic life be negatively affected by other external factors. However, while they can support you through the inevitable ups and downs of the research process, be wary of becoming wholly reliant on their advice on time management, work-life balance, and mental health support.

Boundaries of PhD Advisor Support

To ensure your professional relationship with your advisor remains positive and productive, it is crucial to understand the boundaries of PhD advisor support. For example:

    Advisors cannot carry out your research for you – independence is a key element to the research process.

    Advisors cannot roadmap every step you need to follow – finding your own path is crucial.

    Advisors are not proofreaders – they are there to improve the structure of your thesis, not improve the grammar and punctuation.

    Advisors should never be expected to tend to personal matters beyond the scope of the academic relationship.

    Advisors aren’t always available at the drop of a hat; they have their own research, teaching responsibilities and other advisees to tend to. Always be respectful of this and agree on a communication schedule which works for you both. 

Final Thoughts

PhD advisors shape the outcome of your research and your development as a scholar. Their critical thinking skills, competence in communicating academic ideas and ability to synthesise complex information are all skills you will want to be influenced by as you are working towards the completion of your PhD. 

They are so much more than an academic mentor, consider them as the cornerstone of your doctoral experience. Never forget the onus is on you to maximise the academic relationship, understand its limitations, and utilise the full spectrum of support. The PhD journey is yours to embark upon, but a savvy advisor is a compass that ensures you do not lose your way.

You might also like

Do You Get Paid for a PhD?

Do You Get Paid for a PhD? For many students who don’t have the luxury of never worrying about money, one of the main considerations

Where Can a PhD in Finance Take Me?

Where Can a PhD in Finance Take Me? In the dynamic world of finance, a PhD is not just an academic accolade; it’s a launchpad

Should I Do a PhD in London?

​​Should I Do a PhD in London? Embarking on a PhD journey is a significant decision, one that shapes your academic and professional future. Once

Enquire with us

We are here to help and to make your journey to UWS London as smooth as possible. Please use the relevant button below to enquiry about a course you would like to apply, or to clarify any questions you may have about us and our admission’s process. After you submit your enquiry, one of our advisers will get back to you as soon as possible.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

Contributed equally to this work with: Loay Jabre, Catherine Bannon, J. Scott P. McCain, Yana Eglit

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

• Loay Jabre, 
• Catherine Bannon, 
• J. Scott P. McCain, 

Published: September 30, 2021

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330
• Reader Comments

Citation: Jabre L, Bannon C, McCain JSP, Eglit Y (2021) Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor. PLoS Comput Biol 17(9): e1009330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330

Editor: Scott Markel, Dassault Systemes BIOVIA, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2021 Jabre et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The PhD beckons. You thought long and hard about why you want to do it, you understand the sacrifices and commitments it entails, and you have decided that it is the right thing for you. Congratulations! Undertaking a doctoral degree can be an extremely rewarding experience, greatly enhancing your personal, intellectual, and professional development. If you are still on the fence about whether or not you want to pursue a PhD, see [ 1 , 2 ] and others to help you decide.

As a PhD student in the making, you will have many important decisions to consider. Several of them will depend on your chosen discipline and research topic, the institution you want to attend, and even the country where you will undertake your degree. However, one of the earliest and most critical decisions you will need to make transcends most other decisions: choosing your PhD thesis supervisor. Your PhD supervisor will strongly influence the success and quality of your degree as well as your general well-being throughout the program. It is therefore vital to choose the right supervisor for you. A wrong choice or poor fit can be disastrous on both a personal and professional levels—something you obviously want to avoid. Unfortunately, however, most PhD students go through the process of choosing a supervisor only once and thus do not get the opportunity to learn from previous experiences. Additionally, many prospective PhD students do not have access to resources and proper guidance to rely on when making important academic decisions such as those involved in choosing a PhD supervisor.

In this short guide, we—a group of PhD students with varied backgrounds, research disciplines, and academic journeys—share our collective experiences with choosing our own PhD supervisors. We provide tips and advice to help prospective students in various disciplines, including computational biology, in their quest to find a suitable PhD supervisor. Despite procedural differences across countries, institutions, and programs, the following rules and discussions should remain helpful for guiding one’s approach to selecting their future PhD supervisor. These guidelines mostly address how to evaluate a potential PhD supervisor and do not include details on how you might find a supervisor. In brief, you can find a supervisor anywhere: seminars, a class you were taught, internet search of interesting research topics, departmental pages, etc. After reading about a group’s research and convincing yourself it seems interesting, get in touch! Make sure to craft an e-mail carefully, demonstrating you have thought about their research and what you might do in their group. After finding one or several supervisors of interest, we hope that the rules bellow will help you choose the right supervisor for you.

Rule 1: Align research interests

You need to make sure that a prospective supervisor studies, or at the very least, has an interest in what you want to study. A good starting point would be to browse their personal and research group websites (though those are often outdated), their publication profile, and their students’ theses, if possible. Keep in mind that the publication process can be slow, so recent publications may not necessarily reflect current research in that group. Pay special attention to publications where the supervisor is senior author—in life sciences, their name would typically be last. This would help you construct a mental map of where the group interests are going, in addition to where they have been.

Be proactive about pursuing your research interests, but also flexible: Your dream research topic might not currently be conducted in a particular group, but perhaps the supervisor is open to exploring new ideas and research avenues with you. Check that the group or institution of interest has the facilities and resources appropriate for your research, and/or be prepared to establish collaborations to access those resources elsewhere. Make sure you like not only the research topic, but also the “grunt work” it requires, as a topic you find interesting may not be suitable for you in terms of day-to-day work. You can look at the “Methods” sections of published papers to get a sense for what this is like—for example, if you do not like resolving cryptic error messages, programming is probably not for you, and you might want to consider a wet lab–based project. Lastly, any research can be made interesting, and interests change. Perhaps your favorite topic today is difficult to work with now, and you might cut your teeth on a different project.

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

Discussing your plans with experienced and trustworthy people is a great way to learn more about the reputation of potential supervisors, their research group dynamics, and exciting projects in your field of interest. Your current supervisor, if you have one, could be aware of position openings that are compatible with your interests and time frame and is likely to know talented supervisors with good reputations in their fields. Professors you admire, reliable student advisors, and colleagues might also know your prospective supervisor on various professional or personal levels and could have additional insight about working with them. Listen carefully to what these trusted sources have to say, as they can provide a wealth of insider information (e.g., personality, reputation, interpersonal relationships, and supervisory styles) that might not be readily accessible to you.

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

A considerable portion of PhD students feel that their program does not meet original expectations [ 3 ]. To avoid being part of this group, we stress the importance of aligning your expectations with the supervisor’s expectations before joining a research group or PhD program. Also, remember that one person’s dream supervisor can be another’s worst nightmare and vice versa—it is about a good fit for you. Identifying what a “good fit” looks like requires a serious self-appraisal of your goals (see Rule 1 ), working style (see Rule 5 ), and what you expect in a mentor (see Rule 4 ). One way to conduct this self-appraisal is to work in a research lab to get experiences similar to a PhD student (if this is possible).

Money!—Many people have been conditioned to avoid the subject of finances at all costs, but setting financial expectations early is crucial for maintaining your well-being inside and outside the lab. Inside the lab, funding will provide chemicals and equipment required for you to do cool research. It is also important to know if there will be sufficient funding for your potential projects to be completed. Outside the lab, you deserve to get paid a reasonable, livable stipend. What is the minimum required take-home stipend, or does that even exist at the institution you are interested in? Are there hard cutoffs for funding once your time runs out, or does the institution have support for students who take longer than anticipated? If the supervisor supplies the funding, do they end up cutting off students when funds run low, or do they have contingency plans? ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g001

Professional development opportunities—A key aspect of graduate school training is professional development. In some research groups, it is normal for PhD students to mentor undergraduate students or take a semester to work in industry to get more diverse experiences. Other research groups have clear links with government entities, which is helpful for going into policy or government-based research. These opportunities (and others) are critical for your career and next steps. What are the career development opportunities and expectations of a potential supervisor? Is a potential supervisor happy to send students to workshops to learn new skills? Are they supportive of public outreach activities? If you are looking at joining a newer group, these sorts of questions will have to be part of the larger set of conversations about expectations. Ask: “What sort of professional development opportunities are there at the institution?”

Publications—Some PhD programs have minimum requirements for finishing a thesis (i.e., you must publish a certain number of papers prior to defending), while other programs leave it up to the student and supervisor to decide on this. A simple and important topic to discuss is: How many publications are expected from your PhD and when will you publish them? If you are keen to publish in high-impact journals, does your prospective supervisor share that aim? (Although question why you are so keen to do so, see the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment ( www.sfdora.org ) to learn about the pitfalls of journal impact factor.)

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

Sooner or later, you will get to meet and interview with a prospective PhD supervisor. This should go both ways: Interview them just as much as they are interviewing you. Prepare questions and pay close attention to how they respond. For example, ask them about their “lab culture,” research interests (especially for the future/long term), and what they are looking for in a graduate student. Do you feel like you need to “put on an act” to go along with the supervisor (beyond just the standard interview mode)? Represent yourself, and not the person you think they are looking for. All of us will have some interviews go badly. Remember that discovering a poor fit during the interview has way fewer consequences than the incompatibility that could arise once you have committed to a position.

To come up with good questions for the prospective supervisor, first ask yourself questions. What are you looking for in a mentor? People differ in their optimal levels of supervision, and there is nothing wrong with wanting more or less than your peers. How much career guidance do you expect and does the potential supervisor respect your interests, particularly if your long-term goals do not include academia? What kind of student might not thrive in this research group?

Treat the PhD position like a partnership: What do you seek to get out of it? Keep in mind that a large portion of research is conducted by PhD students [ 4 ], so you are also an asset. Your supervisor will provide guidance, but the PhD is your work. Make sure you and your mentor are on the same page before committing to what is fundamentally a professional contract akin to an apprenticeship (see “ Rule 3 ”).

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

Sharing interests with a supervisor does not necessarily guarantee you would work well together, and just because you enjoyed a course by a certain professor does not mean they are the right PhD supervisor for you. Make sure your expectations for work and work–life approaches are compatible. Do you thrive on structure, or do you need freedom to proceed at your own pace? Do they expect you to be in the lab from 6:00 AM to midnight on a regular basis (red flag!)? Are they comfortable with you working from home when you can? Are they around the lab enough for it to work for you? Are they supportive of alternative work hours if you have other obligations (e.g., childcare, other employment, extracurriculars)? How is the group itself organized? Is there a lab manager or are the logistics shared (fairly?) between the group members? Discuss this before you commit!

Two key attributes of a research group are the supervisor’s career stage and number of people in the group. A supervisor in a later career stage may have more established research connections and protocols. An earlier career stage supervisor comes with more opportunities to shape the research direction of the lab, but less access to academic political power and less certainty in what their supervision style will be (even to themselves). Joining new research groups provides a great opportunity to learn how to build a lab if you are considering that career path but may take away time and energy from your thesis project. Similarly, be aware of pros and cons of different lab sizes. While big labs provide more opportunity for collaborations and learning from fellow lab members, their supervisors generally have less time available for each trainee. Smaller labs tend to have better access to the supervisor but may be more isolating [ 5 , 6 ]. Also note that large research groups tend to be better for developing extant research topics further, while small groups can conduct more disruptive research [ 7 ].

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

Meeting with current students is one of the most important steps prior to joining a lab. Current students will give you the most direct and complete sense of what working with a certain supervisor is actually like. They can also give you a valuable sense of departmental culture and nonacademic life. You could also ask to meet with other students in the department to get a broader sense of the latter. However, if current students are not happy with their current supervisor, they are unlikely to tell you directly. Try to ask specific questions: “How often do you meet with your supervisor?”, “What are the typical turnaround times for a paper draft?”, “How would you describe the lab culture?”, “How does your supervisor react to mistakes or unexpected results?”, “How does your supervisor react to interruptions to research from, e.g., personal life?”, and yes, even “What would you say is the biggest weakness of your supervisor?”

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

While not always possible, meeting with past students can be very informative. Past students give you information on career outcomes (i.e., what are they doing now?) and can provide insight into what the lab was like when they were in it. Previous students will provide a unique perspective because they have gone through the entire process, from start to finish—and, in some cases, no longer feel obligated to speak well of their now former supervisor. It can also be helpful to look at previous students’ experiences by reading the acknowledgement section in their theses.

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

Your PhD supervisor is only one—albeit large—piece of your PhD puzzle. It is therefore essential to consider your PhD experience as whole when deciding on a supervisor. One important aspect to contemplate is your mental health. Graduate students have disproportionately higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to the general population [ 8 ], so your mental health will be tested greatly throughout your PhD experience. We suggest taking the time to reflect on what factors would enable you to do your best work while maintaining a healthy work–life balance. Does your happiness depend on surfing regularly? Check out coastal areas. Do you despise being cold? Consider being closer to the equator. Do you have a deep-rooted phobia of koalas? Maybe avoid Australia. Consider these potentially even more important questions like: Do you want to be close to your friends and family? Will there be adequate childcare support? Are you comfortable with studying abroad? How does the potential university treat international or underrepresented students? When thinking about your next steps, keep in mind that although obtaining your PhD will come with many challenges, you will be at your most productive when you are well rested, financially stable, nourished, and enjoying your experience.

Rule 9: Trust your gut

You have made it to our most “hand-wavy” rule! As academics, we understand the desire for quantifiable data and some sort of statistic to make logical decisions. If this is more your style, consider every interaction with a prospective supervisor, from the first e-mail onwards, as a piece of data.

However, there is considerable value in trusting gut instincts. One way to trust your gut is to listen to your internal dialogue while making your decision on a PhD supervisor. For example, if your internal dialogue includes such phrases as “it will be different for me,” “I’ll just put my head down and work hard,” or “maybe their students were exaggerating,” you might want to proceed with caution. If you are saying “Wow! How are they so kind and intelligent?” or “I cannot wait to start!”, then you might have found a winner ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g002

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

The last piece of advice we give you is to do this lengthy process all over again. Comparing your options is a key step during the search for a PhD supervisor. By screening multiple different groups, you ultimately learn more about what red flags to look for, compatible work styles, your personal expectations, and group atmospheres. Repeat this entire process with another supervisor, another university, or even another country. We suggest you reject the notion that you would be “wasting someone’s time.” You deserve to take your time and inform yourself to choose a PhD supervisor wisely. The time and energy invested in a “failed” supervisor search would still be far less than what is consumed by a bad PhD experience ( Fig 3 ).

The more supervisors your interview and the more advice you get from peers, the more apparent these red flags will become.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g003

Conclusions

Pursuing a PhD can be an extremely rewarding endeavor and a time of immense personal growth. The relationship you have with your PhD supervisor can make or break an entire experience, so make this choice carefully. Above, we have outlined some key points to think about while making this decision. Clarifying your own expectations is a particularly important step, as conflicts can arise when there are expectation mismatches. In outlining these topics, we hope to share pieces of advice that sometimes require “insider” knowledge and experience.

After thoroughly evaluating your options, go ahead and tackle the PhD! In our own experiences, carefully choosing a supervisor has led to relationships that morph from mentor to mentee into a collaborative partnership where we can pose new questions and construct novel approaches to answer them. Science is hard enough by itself. If you choose your supervisor well and end up developing a positive relationship with them and their group, you will be better suited for sound and enjoyable science.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 5. Smith D. The big benefits of working in a small lab. University Affairs. 2013. Available from: https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/career-advice-article/the-big-benefits-of-working-in-a-small-lab/

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Student information
• PhD students' guide

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

• About the Department overview
• How to find the Department
• Annual Report
• HPS Discussion email list
• Becoming a Visiting Scholar or Visiting Student overview
• Visitor fee payment
• Becoming an Affiliate
• Applying for research grants and post-doctoral fellowships
• Administration overview
• Information for new staff
• Information for examiners and assessors overview
• Operation of the HPS plagiarism policy
• Information for supervisors overview
• Supervising Part IB and Part II students
• Supervising MPhil and Part III students
• Supervising PhD students
• People overview
• Teaching Officers
• Research Fellows and Teaching Associates
• Professional Services Staff
• PhD Students
• Research overview
• Research projects overview
• Colonial Natures overview
• The Challenge of Conservation
• Natural History in the Age of Revolutions, 1776–1848
• In the Shadow of the Tree: The Diagrammatics of Relatedness as Scientific, Scholarly and Popular Practice
• The Many Births of the Test-Tube Baby
• Culture at the Macro-Scale: Boundaries, Barriers and Endogenous Change
• Making Climate History overview
• Project summary
• Workstreams
• Works cited and project literature
• Histories of Artificial Intelligence: A Genealogy of Power overview
• From Collection to Cultivation: Historical Perspectives on Crop Diversity and Food Security overview
• Call for papers
• How Collections End: Objects, Meaning and Loss in Laboratories and Museums
• Tools in Materials Research
• Epsilon: A Collaborative Digital Framework for Nineteenth-Century Letters of Science
• Contingency in the History and Philosophy of Science
• Industrial Patronage and the Cold War University
• FlyBase: Communicating Drosophila Genetics on Paper and Online, 1970–2000
• The Lost Museums of Cambridge Science, 1865–1936
• From Hansa to Lufthansa: Transportation Technologies and the Mobility of Knowledge in Germanic Lands and Beyond, 1300–2018
• Medical Publishers, Obscenity Law and the Business of Sexual Knowledge in Victorian Britain
• Kinds of Intelligence
• Varieties of Social Knowledge
• The Vesalius Census
• Histories of Biodiversity and Agriculture
• Investigating Fake Scientific Instruments in the Whipple Museum Collection
• Before HIV: Homosex and Venereal Disease, c.1939–1984
• The Casebooks Project
• Generation to Reproduction
• The Darwin Correspondence Project
• History of Medicine overview
• Events overview
• Past events
• Philosophy of Science overview
• Study HPS overview
• Undergraduate study overview
• Introducing History and Philosophy of Science
• Frequently asked questions
• Routes into History and Philosophy of Science
• Part II overview
• Distribution of Part II marks
• BBS options
• Postgraduate study overview
• Why study HPS at Cambridge?
• MPhil in History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine overview
• A typical day for an MPhil student
• MPhil in Health, Medicine and Society
• PhD in History and Philosophy of Science overview
• Part-time PhD

PhD placement record

• Funding for postgraduate students
• Student information overview
• Timetable overview
• Primary source seminars
• Research methods seminars
• Writing support seminars
• Dissertation seminars
• BBS Part II overview
• Early Medicine
• Modern Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
• Philosophy of Science and Medicine
• Ethics of Medicine
• Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine
• Part III and MPhil
• Single-paper options
• Part IB students' guide overview
• About the course
• Supervisions
• Libraries and readings
• Scheme of examination
• Part II students' guide overview
• Primary sources
• Dissertation
• Key dates and deadlines
• Advice overview
• Examination advice
• Learning strategies and exam skills
• Advice from students
• Part III students' guide overview
• Essays and dissertation
• Subject areas
• MPhil students' guide overview
• PhD students' guide overview
• Welcome to new PhDs
• Registration exercise and annual reviews
• Your supervisor and advisor
• Progress log
• Intermission and working away from Cambridge
• The PhD thesis
• Submitting your thesis
• Examination
• News and events overview
• Seminars and reading groups overview
• Departmental Seminars
• Coffee with Scientists
• Cabinet of Natural History overview
• Publications
• History of Medicine Seminars
• Purpose and Progress in Science
• The Anthropocene
• Calculating People
• Measurement Reading Group
• Teaching Global HPSTM
• Pragmatism Reading Group
• Foundations of Physics Reading Group
• History of Science and Medicine in Southeast Asia
• Atmospheric Humanities Reading Group
• Science Fiction & HPS Reading Group
• Values in Science Reading Group
• Cambridge Reading Group on Reproduction
• HPS Workshop
• Postgraduate Seminars overview
• Images of Science
• Language Groups overview
• Latin Therapy overview
• Bibliography of Latin language resources
• Fun with Latin
• Archive overview
• Lent Term 2024
• Michaelmas Term 2023
• Easter Term 2023
• Lent Term 2023
• Michaelmas Term 2022
• Easter Term 2022
• Lent Term 2022
• Michaelmas Term 2021
• Easter Term 2021
• Lent Term 2021
• Michaelmas Term 2020
• Easter Term 2020
• Lent Term 2020
• Michaelmas Term 2019
• Easter Term 2019
• Lent Term 2019
• Michaelmas Term 2018
• Easter Term 2018
• Lent Term 2018
• Michaelmas Term 2017
• Easter Term 2017
• Lent Term 2017
• Michaelmas Term 2016
• Easter Term 2016
• Lent Term 2016
• Michaelmas Term 2015
• Postgraduate and postdoc training overview
• Induction sessions
• Academic skills and career development
• Print & Material Sources
• Other events and resources
• Part IB students' guide
• Part II students' guide
• Part III students' guide
• MPhil students' guide

As a new PhD student, you will be assigned a supervisor, who is responsible for guiding your studies. You are, however, expected to have the capacity and enthusiasm to organise your own research and to work on your own initiative. You are expected to submit written work at regular intervals for discussion with your supervisor.

We very much hope you will not have any problems with supervision, but if a problem does arise – because, for example, your supervisor is on leave for an extended period or your research takes a new direction, or for personal reasons – you should contact, in the first instance, any of the following: the Director of Graduate Studies, your advisor, the Head of Department or your College tutor. With any of these, you may wish to discuss whether you want to continue along the more formal lines of complaint proposed by the Student Registry.

By the middle of the first term of your PhD the Degree Committee will appoint an advisor for you. You should be actively engaged in selecting your advisor. You are encouraged to submit written work to your advisor at any time, but the submission should not be so extensive that it would prevent the advisor acting as an internal examiner of your thesis. You should meet your advisor at least once a year.

Email search

Privacy and cookie policies

Study History and Philosophy of Science

Undergraduate study

Postgraduate study

Library and Museum

Whipple Library

Whipple Museum

Museum Collections Portal

Research projects

History of Medicine

Philosophy of Science

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

PhD Research Advisors, Committees, and Meetings

[Part of the Policies of the CHD, August 2019]

Selecting a Research Advisor: Spring of G1 Year

During the second semester of study, the student will focus on identifying a specific research area and a potential Ph.D. research advisor.  The potential research advisor may be the same person as the student's first-year advisor, but not necessarily so.   Students are required to finalize their research advisor by early spring of the G1 year to be making satisfactory progress to degree.  The Office of Academic Programs will communicate about the specific deadlines and forms required as part of the selection process.

Occasionally, the potential research advisor may not be a SEAS faculty member, but ordinarily must be a Harvard faculty member.  The appropriate Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) must approve in advance if the student wishes to have a primary advisor who is not a member of the SEAS faculty. Every Ph.D. student with a non-SEAS primary advisor must have an active SEAS co-advisor; some degree areas, e.g., Computer Science, stipulate that the SEAS co-advisor must be in that area.  The SEAS co-advisor will communicate with the student’s primary research advisor, the CHD, and the Office of Academic Programs about academic or financial issues as needed. The SEAS co-advisor will chair the qualifying exam committee (if that role would normally belong to the primary advisor when they are a SEAS faculty member) and the research committee, meet with the student at least once each semester to be updated about degree progress, sign off on the annual student progress report, advise the student about coursework and program requirements as needed, lift the student’s advising hold when primary research advisor is not a member of the FAS faculty, allow the student to register for their 300-level research course and submit the necessary grades at the end of the semester when primary research advisor is not a member of the FAS faculty, and communicate with the student’s primary research advisor about the student’s progress on a regular basis (at least once each semester).

Note that Ph.D. students who have a non-SEAS primary advisor have their G2 tuition paid for by the non-SEAS advisor rather than by SEAS.

Research Committee

Once the qualifying examination has been passed, the final stages of the path to the Ph.D. are initiated by the nomination by the research advisor of a research committee to oversee the student's dissertation research.  The committee monitors the student's research progress and approves the final dissertation.  The Designation of Research Committee form, signed by the research advisor and indicating the other members of the proposed research committee, must be submitted to the Office of Academic Programs, ordinarily within one week after the qualifying examination.   Typically the research committee is comprised of a subset of the members of the qualifying committee.  Subsequent changes in the composition of the research committee must be approved by the CHD or by its representative.  A duly constituted research committee must be in place throughout the rest of the student's graduate career.

The research committee normally consists of three or four Harvard faculty members, with the research advisor as chairperson.  MIT faculty members or other technical professionals of comparable stature from the local area may be included with the approval of the CHD.  At least two SEAS faculty members, at least one of whom is a senior faculty member (i.e. full professor), must be included.  If the research advisor is not a Harvard faculty member, the SEAS co-advisor will chair the research committee.

G3+ Committee Meetings

Starting in the 2019-2020 academic year each SEAS Ph.D area has specific expectations regarding Ph.D. students to meet with their committee members at least annually.  Students in Applied Physics and in Electrical Engineering are to meet 1:1 with each committee member.  The Computer Science faculty hold annual “PhD Review Days” in which the full faculty meet to review each individual student’s situation; students in Computer Science are required to respond to surveys requesting information for the Review Days.  Students in other areas are to meet with their full committee at the same time.  S ee area-specific guidelines for  Applied Math ,  Applied Physics ,  Bioengineering ,  Computer Science ,  Electrical Engineering ,  Environmental Science & Engineering ,  and   Materials Science & Mechanical Engineering .

The final oral examination may be considered to be the committee meeting for that year at the discretion of the research advisor (or the SEAS co-advisor, if applicable), provided the Office of Academic Programs is duly notified.

Students who are in-between advisors have the length of one full semester to identify a new advisor. Students are expected to find external funding or to serve as TF on a two-section appointment for their funding in the Fall or Spring terms.  The TF covers the monthly salary and all tuition/fees. The monthly salary is equal to the RA salary.  There are not TF opportunities over the summer and SEAS does not provide summer funding.  Note a student must be in good standing in order to qualify to serve as a TF and receive funding. Students who cannot identify a new advisor at the end of one full semester will be asked to withdraw from the program based on a lack of progress to degree.

There may arise situations in which the research advisor is temporarily absent on leave or ceases to be a Harvard faculty member while a Ph.D. candidate is engaged in dissertation research.  When the research advisor is temporarily absent for a substantial period, another member of the research committee ­-- ordinarily a SEAS senior faculty member -- should be designated by the research committee as chairman, and the Office of Academic Programs should be notified accordingly.  If another member of the research committee ceases to be a Harvard faculty member, the committee should be reconstituted.

Faculty members normally should not agree to serve as research advisors unless they expect to see the research through to its conclusion.  Should the research advisor cease to be a Harvard faculty member before the Ph.D. candidate completes the requirements for the degree, the research committee must be reconstituted.  The student may wish to find a new research advisor.  If the original research advisor and the student wish to continue their research collaboration, two situations arise.  If the original research advisor remains in the local area and the research can be carried out primarily at Harvard, the previously stated rules shall apply.  If the original research advisor does not remain in the local area or the research cannot be carried out primarily at Harvard, the rules stated below regarding dissertation research in absentia shall apply; these require that a SEAS faculty member assume the formal role of research advisor.

In Academic Programs

• Non-Resident and Part-Time Study
• CHD Meeting Schedule
• PhD Overview and Timeline
• PhD Course Requirements
• PhD Program Plans
• Teaching: G2 year
• Qualifying Exam: by end of G2 year
• Research Advisors, Committees, and Meetings
• Dissertation and Final Oral Exam
• SM and ME Course Requirements
• SM and ME Program Plans
• Masters Thesis and Supervisor
• SM degree en route to the PhD
• Graduate Student Forms
• Teaching Fellows
• External Fellowships List
• COVID-19 Graduate Program Changes (archived)

The Role of Doctoral Advisors: A Look at Advising from the Advisor’s Perspective

• Published: 03 October 2008
• Volume 33 , pages 297–315, ( 2009 )

Cite this article

• Benita J. Barnes 1 &
• Ann E. Austin 2  

3878 Accesses

132 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The doctoral advisor is said to be one of the most important persons—if not the single most critical person—with whom doctoral students will develop a relationship during their doctoral degree programs (Baird 1995 ). However, we have limited knowledge regarding how doctoral advisors see their roles and responsibilities as advisors. Therefore, through in-depth interviews, we explored the perceptions of 25 exemplary doctoral advisors, who have graduated a large number of doctoral students, about their roles and responsibilities as advisors. We conclude this article with implications for doctoral education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethicality of Advisor Motives in Academic Advising: Faculty, Staff, and Student Perspectives

Establishing and Leveraging the Expertise of Advisory Boards

Stephen Fienberg’s Doctoral Advisees and Co-Advisees by Institution and Graduation Year

Ahern, K., & Manathunga, C. (2004). Clutch-starting stalled research students. Innovative Higher Education , 28 (4), 237–254.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, M. S., & Swazey, J. P. (1998). Reflection on the graduate student experience: An overview. In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration. New Directions for Higher Education, 101 (pp. 3–13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Google Scholar  

Anthony, J. S., & Taylor, E. (2004). Theories and strategies of academic career socialization: Improving paths to the professoriate for Black graduate students. In D. H. Wulff, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 92–114). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Austin, A. E. (1994). Understanding and assessing faculty cultures and climates. In M. K. Kinnick (Ed.), Providing useful information for deans and department chairs. New Directions for Institutional Research, 84 (pp. 47–63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Austin, A. E. (2002, January/February). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education , 73 (1), 94–122.

Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate student socialization for faculty roles. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , 21 , 397–456.

Baird, L. L. (1995). Helping graduate students: A graduate adviser’s view. In A. S. Pruitt-Logan & P. D. Isaac (Eds.), Student services for the changing graduate student population. New Directions for Student Services, 72 (pp. 25–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barnes, B. J. (2005). Success in graduate school: How exemplary advisors guide their doctoral advisees . Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Stassen, M. (2007, April). Who’s getting what? Quality and variation in doctoral students’ advising experiences across disciplines . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Beal, P. E., & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention . Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines . Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology , 57 (3), 204–213.

Blackwell, J. E. (1983). Networking and mentoring: A study of cross-generational experiences of Blacks in graduate and professional school (Research Report) . Atlanta, GA: Southern Educational Foundation, Atlanta, GA.

Bragg, A. K. (1976). The socialization process in higher education . Washington, DC: The American Association of Higher Education.

Coombs, R. H. (1978). Mastering medicine . New York, NY: The Free Press.

Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, S. J., & Cooper, D. L. (2001). Assessing advising style: Student perceptions of academic advisors. College Student Affairs Journal , 20 (2), 53–62.

Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fagen, A. P., & Suedkamp Wells, K. M. (2004). The 2000 national doctoral program survey: An on-line study of students’ voices. In D. H. Wulff, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 74–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Academic values and faculty rewards. Review of Higher Education , 17 (1), 43–68.

Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ferrer de Valero, Y. (2001). Departmental factors effecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. Journal of Higher Education , 72 (3), 341–367.

Girves, J. E., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree progress. Journal of Higher Education , 59 (2), 163–189.

Glennen, R. E. (2003). The importance of faculty advising: A CEO and CAO perspective. In G. L. Kramer (Ed.), Faculty advising examined (pp. 40–54). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration. New directions for higher education, 101 (pp. 55–64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. Review of Higher Education , 23 (4), 199–228.

Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education , 76 (6), 669–700.

Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. Golde, & G. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the disciplines (pp. 3–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Retrieved January 31, 2008 from http://www.phd-survey.org

Hartnett, R. T., & Katz, J. (1977). The education of graduate students. Journal of Higher Education , 48 (6), 646–664.

Hawley, P. (1993). Being bright is not enough: The unwritten rules of doctoral studies . Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Heinrich, K. T. (1995). Doctoral advisement relationships between women: On friendship and betrayal. Journal of Higher Education , 66 (4), 447–469.

Hinchey, P., & Kimmel, I. (2000). The graduate grind: A critical look at graduate education . New York, NY: Falmer.

Holland, J. W. (1998). Mentoring and the faculty development of African-American doctoral students. In H. T. Frierson Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 2. Examining protégé–mentor experiences (pp. 17–40). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting mentored in graduate school . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Klomparens, K. L., & Beck, J. P. (2004). Michigan State University’s conflict resolution program: Setting expectations and resolving conflicts. In D. H. Wulff, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future Faculty (pp. 250–264). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lovitts, B. E. (2004). Research on the structure and process of graduate education: Retaining students. In D. H. Wulff, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 115–136). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lowe, A., & Toney, M. (2000). Academic advising: View of the givers ad takers. Journal of College Student Retention , 2 (2), 93–108.

Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1998). Do graduate students need mentoring? College Student Journal , 23 (3), 322–330.

Lyons, W., Scroggins, D., & Rule, P. B. (1990). The mentor in graduate education. Studies in Higher Education , 15 (3), 277–285.

Maher, M. A., Ford, M. E., & Thompson, C. M. (2004). Degree process of women doctoral students: Factors that constrain, facilitate, and differentiate. The Review of Higher Education , 27 (3), 385–408.

McLure, J. E. B. (1989). Recommendations for faculty advising . Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, College of Education, Georgia, USA. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 8922915).

Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., & Dey, E. L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: A study of change over twenty years. The Journal of Higher Education , 71 (4), 454–475.

Minor, J. (2003). For better or worse: Improving advising relationships between faculty and graduate students. In A. L. Green, & L. V. Scott (Eds.), Journey to the Ph.D. How to navigate the process as African Americans (pp. 239–253). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Sprague, J., Fraser, P. K., et al. (1999, May/June). On the road to becoming a professor. Change , 31 (3), 18–27.

Nyquist, J. D., & Woodford, B. J. (2000). Re-envisioning the Ph.D. What concerns do we have? Retrieved July 22, 2008 from http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/project_resources/concerns.html

O’Bara, C. C. (1993). Why some finish and why some don’t: Factors affecting PhD completion . Ph.D. dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University, California, United States. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9330356).

Peters, R. L. (1992). Getting what you came for: The smart guide to earning a M.A. or Ph.D . New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Petress, K. C. (1996). The multiple roles of an undergraduate’s academic advisor. Education , 117 (1), 91–95.

Pole, C. J., Sprokkereef, A., Burgess, R. G., & Lakin, E. (1997). Supervision of doctoral students in the natural sciences: Expectations and experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 22 (1), 49–63.

Seagram, B., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education , 39 (3), 319–335.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Turner, C. S. V., & Thompson, J. R. (1993). Socializing women doctoral students: Minority and majority experiences. Review of Higher Education , 16 (3), 355–370.

Twale, D., & Kochan, F. (1999). Restructuring an educational leadership program: The teacup adventure. International Studies in Educational Administration , 27 (1), 61–69.

Valadez, J. R. (1998). The social dynamic of mentoring in graduate education: A case study of African American students and their graduate advisors. In H. T. Frierson Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 2. Examining protégé–mentor experiences (pp. 129–140). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Vilkinas, T. (2008). An exploratory study of the supervision of Ph.D./research students’ theses. Innovative Higher Education , 32 (5), 297–311.

Waldeck, J. H., Orrego, V. O., Plax, G. T., & Kearney, P. (1997). Graduate student/Faculty mentoring relationships: Who gets mentored, how it happens, and to what end. Communication Quarterly , 45 (3), 93–109.

Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Willie, C. V., Grady, M. K., & Hope, R. O. (1991). African-Americans and the doctoral experience: Implications for policy . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Winston, R. B., & Polkosnik, M. C. (1984). Advising in graduate and professional school. In R. B. Winston Jr., T. K. Miller, S. C. Ender, & T. J. Crites (Eds.), Developmental academic advising (pp. 287–316). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Nyquist, J. D., & Sprague, J. (2004). The development of graduate students as teaching scholars: A four-year longitudinal study. In D. H. Wulff, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 46–73). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yarbrough, D. (2002). The engagement model for effective academic advising with undergraduate college students and student organizations. Journal of Humanistic Counseling Education and Development , 41 (1), 61–68.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational Policy, Research, and Administration, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 111 Infirmary Way, Office 2, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

Benita J. Barnes

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Ann E. Austin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benita J. Barnes .

Additional information

received her Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education from Michigan State University and is currently Assistant Professor of Higher Education Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her research interests include doctoral education, the millennial generation, and identity development. She can be reached at [email protected].

received her Ph.D. in higher education from the University of Michigan and currently holds the Mildred B. Erickson Distinguished Chair in the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Program at Michigan State University. Her research interests include graduate education, teaching and learning, organizational change, and faculty development. She can be reached at [email protected].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Barnes, B.J., Austin, A.E. The Role of Doctoral Advisors: A Look at Advising from the Advisor’s Perspective. Innov High Educ 33 , 297–315 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x

Download citation

Published : 03 October 2008

Issue Date : March 2009

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x

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

• doctoral education
• advisor roles
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• What You Should Expect from Your PhD Supervisor
• Doing a PhD

A good supervisor will act as your mentor. They will not only help you progress through each stage of a PhD program  but can also act as a source of information or someone to bounce ideas off. To get the most from your supervisor, it’s essential to first understand what their role and responsibilities are in relation to you and your PhD. This won’t only help you understand the different ways they can support you, but also enables you to define clear boundaries which will go a long way to ensuring an enjoyable and respected relationship between the two of you.

1. Expertise in Your Subject Area

You should expect your supervisor to be an expert in the subject you are focusing your PhD on. This is crucial as your supervisor will act as your primary means of support during your PhD. Therefore, the effectiveness of his or her support directly corresponds to their knowledge of your chosen subject, which could be the difference to your PhD succeeding or not.

In addition to this, a supervisor who is an expert in your chosen field could save you from unnecessarily adding a year or more to the duration of your PhD. This is because, as an expert, they will already possess an in-depth understanding of what can and cannot be achieved in the field and have an appreciation as to what would and what wouldn’t help your research stand out. This trait will help them keep you on track, which helps ensure your time is being used most effectively.

Ideally, your supervisor should have experience in supervising PhD students. Although you could theoretically tackle your PhD alone, there are many areas applicable to all PhDs, such as literature reviews, methodologies, experiments, thesis, and dissertations, that an experienced supervisor can guide you on.

2. Regular Supervisory Meetings

As good as your supervisor may be, their ability to support you only comes into fruition if you interact with them. You will be expected to arrange regular meetings with your supervisor, and if necessary, other members of your PhD panel. This will allow you to report back on your latest progress, discuss any issue you’re facing, and review any plans to identify potential improvements, etc. Some supervisors will suggest meeting at regular intervals, i.e. every other week, some will suggest meeting on completing a milestone, i.e. completion of your first draft of the literature review, and others will suggest meeting specifically as and when you need their support. While none are notably better than the other, the key is to pick what works best for you and to ensure you’re meeting them frequently, even if that means having to combine two or all of the approaches.

It’s important to appreciate your supervisor is going to be busy. They are not only going to be supervising you, but they’ll likely be providing supervision to several other students, teach undergraduate classes and have their own research projects going on. However, if you can’t meet your supervisor as often as you would like because of this, your communication doesn’t need to suffer. Instead, make use of email . Not only will your supervisor appreciate this as it gives him time to respond on his own schedule, but you’ll likely get a more detailed response.

3. Feedback on Work in Progress

Another vital aspect to expect from your supervisor is to receive continuous feedback on your work. With your supervisor being an expert in their field, he should be able to review your work and identify any issues or areas for improvement. Gaining feedback on your work is critical through all stages of your PhD. Initially, feedback will be imperative to ensure you’re staying on track. Besides this, it gives your supervisor the opportunity to help set up aspects of your PhD in ways they’ve witnessed first-hand to be most effective, for example, by suggesting an alternative way to structure your literature review or record your research findings. During the ending stages of your PhD, your supervisor will play an essential role in supporting you in the production of your thesis or dissertation. The more you liaise with them during this process, the smoother the process will be.

4. Advice and Support

The advice and support that your supervisor can offer you throughout your degree will be invaluable. As an old saying goes, you can never be distracted if you get the right advice from the right person, which in this case will be your supervisor. As well as providing technical support, many supervisors will also look to provide emotional support through words of encouragement when the moment warrants it. Having once undertaken the journey themselves, they fully appreciate how challenging and stressful the journey can be.

It’s important to note that although your supervisor is there to provide support, they are not there to help with the minor details or every problem you may encounter. The role of the supervisor is to mentor, not to teach, or do it for you. It will be your responsibility to plan, execute and monitor your own work and to identify gaps in your own knowledge and address them. Your supervisor may help by recommending literature to read or suggesting external training courses, however, you should expect nothing more intrusive than this.

5. Mediation and Representation

All universities and departments will have their own rules and regulations. As a professional academic student, you will have to adhere to these rules. These rules are unlikely to be limited to behaviour only with several rules influencing your work as a PhD student. These rules may relate to how you are expected to submit documentation or to the experiments that require special permission before being conducted within their labs. If you have any queries about any rule or regulation, your first point of contact should be your supervisor.

Before starting a PhD, it’s reasonable to have many expectations in mind. However, of all expectations, the one of your supervisors is likely to be the most important. Your supervisor will act as the backbone of your research project and should provide you with continuous support throughout each stage of your degree. A great supervisor may not only be the difference between a smooth and turbulent process, but sometimes may also be the difference between a successful and unsuccessful PhD.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

• Recommendations
• Notifications
• My Favorites

Favorites, recommendations, and notifications are only available for UCLA Graduate Students at this time.

Access features exclusively for UCLA students and staff.

As a student, you can:

• Add funding awards to your favorites list
• Get notified of upcoming deadlines and events
• Receive personalized recommendations for funding awards

 We're Sorry

You've signed in with a UCLA undergraduate student account.

UCLA Graduate Programs

Duties and Responsibilities of the Graduate Adviser

Graduate advisers play a key role in the academic life of students and in the functions of the Graduate Division. When a graduate student enters a department to do graduate work, he or she is assigned a faculty adviser. Some departments have just one graduate adviser who counsels all graduate students; in other departments, some or all faculty members serve as advisers.

The graduate advisers are appointed by the department chair or interdepartmental degree program committee. The chair’s signature is required on some forms; in other cases, the graduate advisers’ signatures are the only departmental signatures, in addition to the chair, recognized as official on various Graduate Division forms and on petitions presented by graduate students. Graduate advisers formally approve students’ programs of study, advise them on advancement to candidacy for higher degrees, consider their petitions to change majors, to add or drop courses, to apply for readmission, etc. In all of these matters, the adviser or the advisement team must judge whether the student’s request is in order, is in his or her own best interest, and is feasible under existing regulations.

The Graduate Division recognizes that departmental staff also play a pivotal role in providing information and advice on policy and procedures to students. In some instances, staff are even recommended by the chair for signature authority for certain petitions and forms (e.g. current drop/add petitions). Therefore, it is essential that staff who have administrative responsibility for serving graduate students become thoroughly familiar with the policies and procedures outlined in all Graduate Division publications available on this web site.

The Graduate Division staff hopes that the information presented on this site will be helpful to all graduate advisers and to departmental staff assistants in the understanding of the many policies, procedures and other matters that are encountered in the counseling of students. We welcome your feedback and suggestions for improvement in the presentation of these materials.

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

5 Tips for Becoming a Great Ph.D. Advisor

There are several factors that can make a Ph.D. advisor more effective. Of course, thorough knowledge of the subject is a must, along with sufficient time and willingness to help a student. However, this is just scratching the surface of what makes such a role truly constructive. Let's drill down into the specific qualities of a Ph.D. advisor and find out what should be the ultimate goals of such an endeavor.

1. Set clear expectations

Expectations for graduate students vary widely. Different departments, professors, universities, and fields of study have vastly different expectations of their students. While some requirements may be codified by the department (e.g. each Ph.D. student must serve as a teaching assistant for a total two semesters), the reality may be quite different (e.g. most Ph.D. students teach nearly every semester because it is their primary means of financial support). Other expectations are not formally codified, but essentially non-negotiable (e.g. Ph.D. students will engage in research activities through the majority of the summer break).

To prevent misunderstandings and to set each graduate student on the road to success, clearly tell your students what you expect of them. Explain your longer-term goals for them: e.g. they should develop a reliable system to measure XYZ by the end of year 2, present new results at conferences every year, and be done with the majority of their data collection and analysis by the end of year 4 or 5. Also clarify your more mundane expectations: e.g. graduate students are expected to work a minimum of 40 hours per week, come in on nights and weekends as necessary, and take 3-4 weeks off for vacations and holidays per year. To keep students on track in the short term, tell them what you expect by your next meeting: e.g. find and read papers on topic C, do a test run for experiment B, and analyze your results from experiment A.

Obviously, these goals will need to be adjusted as circumstances change. For example, if experiment B doesn't produce interesting results, focus on experiment C. Furthermore, as graduate students mature and develop a better understanding of where they and their work are headed, they will increasingly be the ones to set expectations for their work. You will still serve as their advisor, but become more of a colleague.

2. Foster a collaborative work environment

One of the major benefits of working in an academic setting is being surrounded by a community of scholars. While you are your graduate students' official advisor, you should neither want nor need to be their only source of scholarly guidance and discussion. One of the best things you can do for yourself and your students is to foster a collaborative work environment, where everyone can talk about their research with multiple people. This takes pressure off of you, so that projects can move forward when you aren't available to help. It also helps your students become more independent, as they learn to use many sources of information and think critically about many topics. Finally, it leads to better ideas, since multiple perspectives help identify problems and possible solutions.

Regular group meetings are an obvious way to foster a collaborative work environment, where everyone regularly talks about their progress and their problems, and seeks feedback from other group members. If your research group is small, have occasional joint meetings with another group studying related topics. As graduate students mature, put them in charge of training less experienced students. Post-docs should be even better prepared to supervise students.

While graduate students have an intuitive admiration for faculty and post-docs, you should emphasize the importance of treating all members of the department with respect. For example, experienced lab technicians are often more knowledgeable, more skilled, and more efficient in their work than most graduate students. Furthermore, support staff like administrative assistants, technical support, and cleaning staff allow a research program to run smoothly. However, some graduate students feel entitled to disrespect these people. You set the tone for your research group, and should immediately stop such toxic behavior.

Finally, graduate students should understand that they share many resources with other members of their research group, and the larger community. Each graduate student must contribute to ensuring that these resources are ready for the next person. This includes cleaning up after themselves, ensuring that supplies are replaced when they run low, and properly caring for equipment. It may make sense to assign specific tasks (e.g. ordering supplies for X, periodically cleaning out Y) or to have a rotating schedule, but make sure that everybody contributes their fair share.

3. Treat each student as an individual

What works for one student may not work for another. At the beginning of your working relationship with a graduate student—the first year or so—you should constantly assess whether your current method of working together is producing good results. Is the student developing a deeper understanding of the subject matter and acquiring necessary skills at a reasonable pace? Is the student engaged in the project and increasingly taking control of their work? Different people are motivated in different ways, and finding what works well for each student can require substantial trial and error.

In some fields of study, new researchers will interact with their advisor or another supervisor nearly every day as they are learning new skills in the laboratory or field. Some students continue to benefit from a brief daily check-in even after they have learned the necessary technical skills. Other students quickly come to appreciate the flexibility and responsibility associated with less frequent check-ins. Regardless of the field of study, I recommend meeting with new graduate students at least once a week, and balancing the level of supervision that they need with the level that they want.

Also understand that different students have different personalities, different personal responsibilities, and different goals. While some students enjoy listening to music or chatting while they work, others need a quiet environment to focus. While some students will always stay late for drinks and snacks, others leave to spend time with family. While some students are hoping for a job like yours, others want a career in industry, education, communication, or other fields. Respect these differences, and focus on the quality and quantity of work produced, not the number of hours spent in lab.

4. Provide guidance, criticism, and support

As a Ph.D. advisor, your job is to guide your Ph.D. student through the successful defense of their Ph.D. dissertation. You also have an obligation to help your student prepare for the next stage of their career. Therefore, you must help ensure that the student's work meets the high standards of their dissertation committee, of reputable journals, and of possible future employers. You must prepare your students to respond to the harshest critics of their work.

This will often involve pushing your students to do more (e.g. achieving a larger sample size) or to do better (e.g. writing a more comprehensive introduction for their research proposal). It may also involve telling a student that a research idea that they love (and may have spent many months working on) is inadequate for a Ph.D. dissertation. It may be that the preliminary results are unpromising, or that the work would not add anything significantly new to the field. While these may be difficult discussions, it is far better to kill an unpromising project than to let the student continue and end up with work that is inconsequential, unpublishable, and that would leave them poorly prepared for the next stage of their career.

While Ph.D. advisors fully expect to help students with their research, they should also be prepared to help them navigate the "politics" of their department and their field. This may include managing conflicts with people who use the same departmental resources, and the expectations of other professors (e.g. members of their dissertation committee or a professor they are teaching for). Other topics may include requests involving researchers working on a related question (e.g. sharing an unpublished reagent), the expectations of journal publishers and reviewers, and when and how to apply for research funding.

In addition to providing guidance and criticism for your students' research, you need to provide moral support. Good research is challenging, and all researchers encounter failure. Beginning researchers can have an especially difficult time differentiating between a "normal" amount of failure and an "unacceptable" level of failure. By stepping in to provide encouragement (e.g. "This is a common problem/an incredibly interesting question/something I think you'll be able to solve") in addition to actionable suggestions (e.g. "try adjusting B and C as described in previously published work"), you can significantly improve a person's mood and make them more productive.

5. Produce good researchers, not just good research

Almost all Ph.D. advisors are under substantial pressure to publish and to obtain external grants. In the short term, it may seem that the best way to achieve these goals is to treat graduate students as poorly paid employees, who follow your directions to maximize productivity and publications. But if graduate students are not given enough freedom to explore and make mistakes, they will move to the next stage of their careers without sufficient practice in developing their own research questions and recovering from mistakes. This will reflect poorly on you in the long term, so it is in your best interest to produce good researchers, not just good research.

Related Posts

How to Write a Thematic Analysis

Deconstructing a Film Analysis Essay: Tips and Techniques

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Need an academic editor before submitting your work?

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

Susanna Chamberlain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Griffith University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s no secret that getting a PhD is a stressful process .

One of the factors that can help or hinder this period of study is the relationship between supervisor and student. Research shows that effective supervision can significantly influence the quality of the PhD and its success or failure.

PhD supervisors tend to fulfil several functions: the teacher; the mentor who can support and facilitate the emotional processes; and the patron who manages the springboard from which the student can leap into a career.

There are many styles of supervision that are adopted – and these can vary depending on the type of research being conducted and subject area.

Although research suggests that providing extra mentoring support and striking the right balance between affiliation and control can help improve PhD success and supervisor relationships, there is little research on the types of PhD-supervisor relationships that occur.

From decades of experience of conducting and observing PhD supervision, I’ve noticed ten types of common supervisor relationships that occur. These include:

The candidate is expected to replicate the field, approach and worldview of the supervisor, producing a sliver of research that supports the supervisor’s repute and prestige. Often this is accompanied by strictures about not attempting to be too “creative”.

Cheap labour

The student becomes research assistant to the supervisor’s projects and becomes caught forever in that power imbalance. The patron-client roles often continue long after graduation, with the student forever cast in the secondary role. Their own work is often disregarded as being unimportant.

The “ghost supervisor”

The supervisor is seen rarely, responds to emails only occasionally and has rarely any understanding of either the needs of the student or of their project. For determined students, who will work autonomously, the ghost supervisor is often acceptable until the crunch comes - usually towards the end of the writing process. For those who need some support and engagement, this is a nightmare.

The relationship is overly familiar, with the assurance that we are all good friends, and the student is drawn into family and friendship networks. Situations occur where the PhD students are engaged as babysitters or in other domestic roles (usually unpaid because they don’t want to upset the supervisor by asking for money). The chum, however, often does not support the student in professional networks.

Collateral damage

When the supervisor is a high-powered researcher, the relationship can be based on minimal contact, because of frequent significant appearances around the world. The student may find themselves taking on teaching, marking and administrative functions for the supervisor at the cost of their own learning and research.

The practice of supervision becomes a method of intellectual torment, denigrating everything presented by the student. Each piece of research is interrogated rigorously, every meeting is an inquisition and every piece of writing is edited into oblivion. The student is given to believe that they are worthless and stupid.

Creepy crawlers

Some supervisors prefer to stalk their students, sometimes students stalk their supervisors, each with an unhealthy and unrequited sexual obsession with the other. Most Australian universities have moved actively to address this relationship, making it less common than in previous decades.

Captivate and con

Occasionally, supervisor and student enter into a sexual relationship. This can be for a number of reasons, ranging from a desire to please to a need for power over youth. These affairs can sometimes lead to permanent relationships. However, what remains from the supervisor-student relationship is the asymmetric set of power balances.

Almost all supervision relationships contain some aspect of the counsellor or mentor, but there is often little training or desire to develop the role and it is often dismissed as pastoral care. Although the life experiences of students become obvious, few supervisors are skilled in dealing with the emotional or affective issues.

Colleague in training

When a PhD candidate is treated as a colleague in training, the relationship is always on a professional basis, where the individual and their work is held in respect. The supervisor recognises that their role is to guide through the morass of regulation and requirements, offer suggestions and do some teaching around issues such as methodology, research practice and process, and be sensitive to the life-cycle of the PhD process. The experience for both the supervisor and student should be one of acknowledgement of each other, recognising the power differential but emphasising the support at this time. This is the best of supervision.

There are many university policies that move to address a lot of the issues in supervisor relationships , such as supervisor panels, and dedicated training in supervising and mentoring practices. However, these policies need to be accommodated into already overloaded workloads and should include regular review of supervisors.

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Senior Lecturer in Periodontics

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Joseph Wakim PhD Thesis Defense

Physical models of chromatin organization and epigenetic domain stability, event details:, this event is open to:.

Joseph Wakim PhD Candidate Chemical Engineering Academic advisor: Professor Andrew Spakowitz

Abstract: Physical Models of Chromatin Organization and Epigenetic Domain Stability

Although there are about 200 distinct cell types in the human body, all somatic cells in an individual share the same genetic code. The spatial organization of DNA plays an important role in regulating gene expression, enabling broad cellular diversity. In each cell, approximately two meters of DNA is organized into a cell nucleus only about 10 microns in diameter. This high degree of compaction is achieved by wrapping DNA tightly around histone octamers to form units called nucleosomes. These nucleosomes are arranged into tight chains called chromatin. Chemical modifications along the chromatin fiber, known as epigenetic marks, cause chromatin to phase separate into loose “euchromatin” and dense “heterochromatin.” Genes in euchromatin are accessible to transcriptional machinery and are more likely to be expressed, while those in heterochromatin are inaccessible and tend to be suppressed. Dysregulation of 3D chromatin architecture has been implicated in several age-related disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease and cancer.

During this presentation, I will explore how patterns of epigenetic marks and conditions in the nuclear environment dictate chromatin organization. I will begin by focusing on the transcriptionally active euchromatic phase. Despite its overall accessibility, euchromatin is characterized by isolated clusters of nucleosomes, which can affect local transcription levels. I will introduce a model that explains how nucleosome geometry and positioning are affected by trace levels of epigenetic marks in euchromatin, causing clusters to form along the chromatin fiber. Using this model, I will evaluate the physical factors dictating cluster sizes.

I will then introduce a model that explains how interacting “reader proteins,” which preferentially bind specific epigenetic marks, affect large-scale chromatin organization and contribute to the segregation of euchromatic and heterochromatic phases. I will demonstrate that direct interactions between different reader proteins are not required to facilitate their crosstalk. Rather, due to the shared scaffold to which reader proteins bind, chromatin condensation by one reader protein may indirectly support the binding of another. According to our model, if different reader proteins compete for binding sites along the chromatin fiber, large-scale chromatin organization can be remodeled in response to changes in reader protein concentrations. By characterizing modes of epigenetic crosstalk, I will demonstrate the interdependence of multiple epigenetic marks on the spatial organization of DNA.

Overall, my presentation will leverage principles from polymer theory, statistical mechanics, and molecular biology to identify factors contributing to the physical regulation of gene expression. The projects I will discuss offer a framework for evaluating how changes in epigenetic patterning and the nuclear environment affect local chromatin accessibility, which is implicated in cell differentiation and age-related diseases.

Related Topics

Explore more events, sevahn vorperian phd thesis defense, benny freeman, four l.a.s.e.r. talks: human embodiment, 3d printing, ocean health, chinese computing".

Former Chevron employee wins government gas advisor role, prompting potential conflict of interest concerns

The WA environment minister says he is seeking legal advice over concerns an expert appointed to consider appeals against a controversial gas expansion used to work for one of the companies involved in the project.

Biosecurity expert Professor Simon McKirdy is the co-chair of an appeals committee set up to consider appeals against the 2022 Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) report that recommended it was acceptable to extend the life of the Karratha Gas Plant, part of the massive North West Shelf group of projects operated by Woodside as part of a joint venture with five other companies.

One of those companies is Chevron, which is a one-sixth foundation owner in the North West Shelf project.

It's also where Professor McKirdy worked as a biosecurity science and risk manager between 2013 and 2016, according to his LinkedIn page.

More recently, he's served as director of the Harry Butler Institute at Murdoch University, which was launched by Chevron in 2018 to support sustainability and environmental protection through research.

Environment Minister Reece Whitby said he sought the advice about the possible conflict after environmental groups raised the issue with him.

Opposition to gas approval

The contentious Karratha gas expansion was given the green light after the EPA recommended the minister approve extending the life of the Karratha Gas Plant to 2070 , while insisting on measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. 

The recommendation prompted hundreds of appeals from environmental groups, who were concerned the 50-year extension would blow Australia's carbon budget on the path to net zero.

In response, an independent Appeals Committee was appointed to assess the appeals and the EPA response, before making a fresh recommendation to the climate action minister.

Concern over past employment

In April, some of the appellants were notified that the minister had appointed Professor McKirdy and former Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions boss Mark Webb as joint co-chairs of the Appeals Committee.

Earlier this month the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace wrote to the minister outlining their concerns about Professor McKirdy's past employment.

Professor McKirdy has extensive experience in biosecurity and is currently Murdoch's deputy vice-chancellor of global engagement, while also working as a researcher at the Harry Butler Institute.

His LinkedIn page shows he worked as a biosecurity science and risk manager for Chevron between 2013 and 2016 and sat on the Biosecurity Council of Western Australia between 2014 and 2023.

It then records his appointment as director of the Harry Butler Institute between late-2017 and early-2023, and a stint as pro vice-chancellor of the institute between 2019 and 2023.

Chevron’s current involvement with the Institute is unclear, although the university’s 2021 annual report described the company as a “key supporter of the Institute”.

Professor McKirdy directed requests for comment to the minister or the Office of the Appeals Convenor.

Government taking advice: Whitby

Mr Whitby told the ABC he had received the letter.

"In a place like Western Australia where you have people with experience in environmental areas, there is always going to be some issue where someone may have worked at a place previously," he said.

"That does not necessarily exclude you from being involved in these processes.

"But we will take some careful advice from state solicitors, and we will consider that issue."

Mr Whitby said he had not been aware Mr McKirdy had previously been employed by Chevron before receiving the letter.

"But it does not surprise me because I think he also has experience with other organisations and in the scientific and environmental field," he said.

"Highly qualified people often work at a number of places.

"But we will take the best advice on that. We want to ensure that the process is appropriate."

Elizabeth Sullivan from the Australian Conservation Foundation said the groups were still waiting on a response from the minister.

"A record 776 appeals have been lodged, indicating the great public interest in ensuring that the NWS extension proposal is carefully considered," she said in a statement to the ABC.

"We urge the minister to respond to our concerns and assure the public that a rigorous due diligence process has occurred to ensure no conflict of interest exists."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Fresh push to block woodside's burrup expansion wins support from kim beazley and carmen lawrence.

Woodside's Scarborough gas project dealt blow with part of its environmental plan ruled invalid

Woodside's Scarborough expansion has sparked global climate protests, but what's happening locally?

Woodside's North West Shelf gas project gets environmental tick to extend its life to 2070

• Climate Change
• Environment
• Environmental Impact
• Environmental Management
• Environmental Policy
• Government and Politics
• Karratha Industrial Estate
• Mining Environmental Issues
• Mining and Metals Industry
• Oil and Gas
• Port Hedland
• State and Territory Government
• State and Territory Parliament

Browns hiring Chris Polian, former Commanders personnel exec and a John Carroll graduate, as a special advisor

• Updated: May. 20, 2024, 7:04 p.m. |
• Published: May. 20, 2024, 12:39 p.m.

The Browns are hiring Chris Polian, right, for a front office role. In this 2018 photo he is shown talking to his father, former NFL executive Bill Polian, before a game. AP

• Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- New Browns front office special advisor Chris Polian won’t need directions around Cleveland when he arrives in town for his new job here.

Polian, the former Washington Commanders director of pro personnel and son of Pro Football Hall of Fame executive Bill Polian, graduated from John Carroll University in 1993 with a degree in Communications, and his brother, Brian, is the Director of Athletics there.

More Cleveland Browns coverage

• Kevin Stefanski on Deshaun Watson’s recovery, Nyheim Hines, and more: Transcript
• Watch Deshaun Watson make the most of Day 2 of Browns OTAs despite resting his shoulder
• Browns O-line changes are a notable highlight as OTAs begin

Chris Polian has spent the bulk of his career with the Colts, where he ultimately served as Vice President and General Manager from 2009-2011.

During that timeframe, Browns GM Andrew Berry was a scout for the Colts. It marks the second time Berry has hired one of his former Colts GM’s bosses as a Browns personnel advisor. In 2020, he hired Ryan Grigson, now an exec with the Vikings, as Senior Football Advisor.

Chris Polian learned the business from his father, a 2016 Hall of Fame Inductee who worked as general manager of the Buffalo Bills, Indianapolis Colts and Carolina Panthers.

Before joining the Commanders, who are reorganizing their front office, Polian spent seven seasons as director of pro personnel with the Jaguars from 2013-2019. There, he helped sign a number of free agents who made the Pro Bowl during their time in Jacksonville, including defensive end Calais Campbell, defensive tackle Malik Jackson and cornerback A.J. Bouye. In 2017, the defense ranked No. 2 in the NFL and helped Jacksonville win the AFC South and earn an trip to the AFC Championship game.

During his 14 seasons with the Colts from 1998-2011, Indianapolis went 143-81 with seven division titles and a Super Bowl championship in 2006. The Colts also became the only team in NFL history to win 12-plus games in seven straight seasons during that span.

Prior to joining the Colts, Polian spent four seasons as a Panthers personnel assistant.

CHRIS POLIAN FOOTBALL TIMELINE

• 2024: Browns Special Advisor
• 2021: Director of Pro Personnel, Washington Football Team
• 2013-19: Director of Pro Personnel, Jacksonville Jaguars
• 2012: Executive Scout, Atlanta Falcons
• 2009-11: Vice President and General Manager, Indianapolis Colts
• 2005-09: Vice President of Football Operations, Indianapolis Colts
• 2004: Assistant General Manager/Football Operations, Indianapolis Colts
• 2001-03: Assistant Director of Football Operations, Indianapolis Colts
• 1998-2000: Director of Pro Scouting, Indianapolis Colts
• 1994-97: Personnel Assistant, Carolina Panthers

Kathleen Wood promoted to scouting position

Berry also promoted area scout Kathleen Wood to Scouting/Personnel Assessment and Development.

Former Browns personnel exec Scott Pioli, the former GM of the Chiefs and current member of the Board of Trustee for the Women’s Sports Foundation, has supported Wood since he discovered she was spending her own money to break into NFL scouting.

“Kathleen’s perseverance and passion for the game led her to seize every opportunity that came her way, including internships and shadowing experiences - it has fueled her and propelled her,” Pioli wrote on a LinkedIn post. “It’s ALL HER!!”

If you or a loved one has questions and needs to talk to a professional about gambling, call the Ohio Problem Gambling Helpline at 1-800-589-9966 or the National Council on Program Gambling Helpline (NCPG) at 1-800-522-4700 or visit 1800gambler.net for more information. 21+ and present in Ohio. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.