Abstract
The relationship between a PhD candidate and their supervisor is influential in not only successful candidate completion, but maintaining candidate satisfaction and mental health. We quantified potential mismatches between the PhD candidates and supervisors expectations as a potential mechanism that facilitates poor candidate experiences and research training outcomes. 114 PhD candidates and 52 supervisors ranked the importance of student attributes and outcomes at the beginning and end of candidature. In relation to specific attributes, supervisors indicated the level of guidance they expected to give the candidate and candidates indicated the level of guidance they expected to receive. Candidates also report on whether different aspects of candidature influenced their mental well-being. We identified differences between candidates and supervisors perceived supervisor teaching responsibility and influences on mental well-being. Our results indicate that the majority of candidates were satisfied overall with their supervision, and find alignment of many expectations between both parties. Yet, we find that candidates have much higher expectations of achieving quantitative outcomes than supervisors. Supervisors believed they give more guidance to candidates than candidates perceive they received, and supervisors often only provided guidance when the candidate explicitly asked. Personal expectations and research progress significantly and negatively influenced over 50% of candidate’s mental well-being. Our results highlight the importance of candidates and supervisors explicitly communicating the responsibilities and expectations of the roles they play in helping candidates develop research skills. We provide four suggestions to supervisors that may be particularly effective at increasing communication, avoiding potential conflict and promoting candidate success and wellbeing.
