Search results

There are numerous existing resources which claim to discuss the most important factors a potential PhD student should consider when looking for a possible supervisor. Commonly discussed topics include the supervisors’ record and approach, but there is much more to finding a reciprocal and beneficial relationship. This chapter will address some of these less discussed factors to look for when selecting a supervisor, including sense of humor. This chapter will help the hopeful PhD student maneuver the uncomfortable − and often overwhelming − waters of selecting a supervisor by pointing out the questions students forget to ask, the character traits they don’t think to consider, and examples of supervision selection gone wrong. It starts with the often-confusing process of knowing where to start looking, then highlights five frequently ignored factors that deserve more consideration, and finishes with warning signs to look for that mark supervisors to avoid.

The aim of this paper is to explore the types of social networks and relationships that PhD candidates identify as important in a successful PhD journey.

We use an under-utilised yet rich data source: PhD thesis acknowledgements. The paper employs a sample of 79 PhD acknowledgements drawn from diverse disciplines across Australian universities to illustrate the types of social support provided, who and what is acknowledged as providing support and the intersections between the types and providers of support.

Key findings of the paper are that three types of support are evident – emotional, academic and instrumental – and that families, colleagues and supervisors, as well as others, are acknowledged for providing all three forms of support. Further, acknowledgements give insights into students’ personal and professional development and identification as researchers.

This research helps higher degree research recognise the breadth of relationships in the PhD process to make provisions that encourage such network building. It delineates the meaning and value of social support in successful doctoral candidature. So far, little empirical research has outlined the types of support valued by students.

The study confirms the critical place of candidates’ networks in the PhD journey, broadens the view of what constitutes support and identifies the range of individuals involved in the process. It identifies potential in acknowledgements as a source of evidence of social support and researcher development in the PhD experience.