Good supervision: Every PhD student wants it, but it's not wise simply to expect it….

Abstract

Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief I've conducted a small and informal survey of what PhD students in the life sciences consider most important in their fledgling research career. The words that appear most often are “good supervision”. What this might mean in concrete terms is probably manifest in other concepts that the students consider important, such as a good working environment, scientific guidance, collaboration (at all levels, from cross-university to international, and with industry), appropriate independence, contact with other research groups and young scientists, presentation opportunities at conferences, support with publication, and obtaining funding. That's a pretty tall order in terms of mentorship for a principal investigator (PI) with even a small group, let alone a large one; and to pick up on the last point “obtaining funding”, the PI is probably so consumed with applying for funding simply to maintain her/his research group that one may well wonder how s/he can actively supervise anything or anyone. If this situation doesn't change, and I don't see any signs of that given the increasing competition for research funding, something else has to. This might sound heretical, and my intention is, indeed, to be provocative, but I think that it is counterproductive to expect good supervision these days: the change needs to be in the mindset of students. Firstly, don't expect that your supervisor will have a plan for your personal development and will come to you and offer mentorship in a range of skills: you need to go to your supervisor. Secondly, distinguish between things that you can get elsewhere and things that you can best, or only, get from your supervisor: have a plan of the skills that you need to develop, and identify ways of attaining them. These days there are increasing numbers of online resources that support researchers. The bottom line is “be organized”. It's a difficult task alright, because research is, in most settings, no ordinary job with ordinary hours and a clear career structure: you need to perceive your PhD at once as a scientific adventure with many unknowns, “undefineds” and the need for flexibility, and a crucial period of your career in which you must attain some very defined skills in order to progress in research. In concreate terms this means that one of the first things you need to do when embarking on your PhD − besides thoroughly reading yourself into your field's literature − is to make a list of the qualities that you wish to possess at the point of PhD graduation. If that's hard, simply ask a nearby post-doc! S/he doesn't even need to be in your lab. In areas where you know that your supervisor would be the best person to contribute to your skills development use the following approach: ask your supervisor now and then what s/he is up to in a few key areas (I mentioned in a previous editorial that that can be useful for getting involved in your first peer review experience), and see whether you can become involved or at least learn. Even if you limit yourself to the following three priority areas, you'll get most of what you need, one way or another: interactions/collaborations with other researchers (“Whom did you meet/talk to at that meeting the other day? What are they up to?”; “You know that recent article on XYZ, would it be appropriate for us to interact with that group in some way?”); publication (“I know I'm not publishing anything yet, but can I see how you and post-doc X are putting together that paper and choosing where to publish it?”); obtaining funds (“Where are you looking for funding at the moment? Can you tell me a bit about the proposal that you're writing for our lab and what approach you're using to maximize its chances of success?”). Obtaining funds was, indeed, a fairly common point of concern in my small informal survey, so I suggest that, given the time constraints of most PIs, one of the most useful things that they can do is involve younger members of their lab in the grant application writing process − not least because this has the added benefit of training them in some crucial aspects of writing that also apply to research articles. Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief