Supervision during the early stages of an academic career

How students, doctoral researchers and newly qualified postdocs are supervised and supported in their career development varies according to their career stage. Good supervision mainly consists of

• regular talks and
• career advice.

It also includes giving the individual concerned the freedom to develop of their own accord and try things out. Working through checklists is not what is required here: good supervision should embrace an attitude that offers support and empowerment while doing justice to individual needs. While in some cases close guidance may be necessary at least some of the time, in others it may be necessary to provide more room for manoeuvre. In any case it is important to emphasise transparency, ensuring that both supervisor and supervisee take their share of responsibility and treat each other with respect.

In the doctoral phase in particular supervision is best provided based on a supervision agreement with defined contact persons and a clear-cut definition of goals, roles, rights and responsibilities. Depending in part on the respective discipline, the agreement might state the following:

• how often meetings are held (in person),
• when draft texts are to be presented, read and discussed,
• which milestones are to be achieved and by when,
• who holds usage rights to the research data,
• what happens if one of those involved leaves the higher education institution or non-HEI research institution,
• how authorship is regulated,
• which qualification measures are to be taken and when, etc.

It is a good idea to define the rights and responsibilities of all those involved so that everyone can refer back to them. Supervision agreements are important in establishing rights, especially for doctoral researchers. This helps when difficulties or conflicts arise. In any case, supervision is always based on reciprocity: supervisors should also be able to say whether they are satisfied.

• Regardless of the specific involvement of doctoral researchers in research operations, they should have sufficient time and opportunity to complete their doctorate and participate in additional qualification measures.
• Joint supervision by two professors or an advisory committee is a good way to ensure optimum supervision at all times, even in difficult and contentious situations or when one supervisor is absent. The supervision committee should also include external supervisors.
• Supervisors are role models, and further training can help less experienced supervisors be effective here.
• Wherever possible, the supervision and funding of a doctoral researcher should be kept separate. This is another reason why joint supervision may be advisable.
• Supervisors should only take on as many doctoral researchers as they can adequately supervise. They should assess the dissertation as swiftly as possible. The duration of doctorate studies should be reasonable and take into account the culture of the specific subject.
• Scientific or scholarly societies should agree on what is meant by “good supervision” in their respective subject areas, determining which aspects are to be passed on by experienced researchers to less experienced ones and which practices are to be included in the training canon (e.g. good research design).
• In addition to supervision itself, mentoring schemes should be provided for individual support in career development involving experienced individuals from the academic setting or from other fields. Mentoring programmes also support junior research group leaders in setting up and leading their own research group as well as becoming established in their discipline at the institution concerned.
• It helps if institutions adopt doctoral guidelines or directives with regard to doctoral researchers and postdocs, as is already the case at some higher education institutions or non-HEI research institutions.