How to supervise a thesis—best practice

D. A. Isenberg and M. Salmon on behalf of the Research Training Committee of the British Society for Rheumatology

Centre for Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University College London, Arthur Stanley House, 40–50 Tottenham Street, London WIP 9PG and Department of Rheumatology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK


    Introduction
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 
Many rheumatologists during the course of their training will undertake a period of clinical or basic research, on average from 2 to 4 yr, which will result in the publication of one or more papers and the submission of a thesis. The committee has expressed its views about the pros and cons of undertaking an MD or a PhD (or even an MSc) elsewhere [1]. Although there has been a tradition that the MD is an unsupervised degree, in our view this practice should be strongly discouraged. Whichever of these degrees is eventually submitted, the student requires supervision. Supervision should be a symbiotic relationship; it is certainly not a trivial one and much time and thought needs to be given to the task.

The traditional practice of limited or no supervision for clinical research fellows is not satisfactory, because no one can do research instinctively. The scientific method and process of research as initiated by Galileo and formalized by Bradley some 300 yr ago has a complex methodology and approach that requires training. Indeed, Bradley trained assistants in the traditional apprenticeship model that is still appropriate for students today. We do not expect people to work out for themselves how to practice medicine, or mend cars; it is rather unreasonable to assume that people can do science in this way. The inevitable consequences of a large number of clinical fellows beavering away in an unsupervised fashion are wasted time and money. And worse! Work undertaken in this way will inevitably be poorly designed, controlled, executed and unpublishable (or would be better unpublished). For the individual concerned, pressures and disappointments arise when it becomes obvious that his or her efforts to further their careers are going to be thwarted by inadequate data.

Unfortunately, too many of today's supervisors grew up in this environment, and consequently many have little idea of what is required to do good science themselves. Some take the view that if they had to suffer like this and make their own way, why should the present generation be spoon-fed? Perhaps the best reason, from a purely selfish point of view, is that the supervisor's reputation is invested in this work, just as much as the student's.

We propose a list of important issues that must be addressed if a student is to undertake research. These principles apply equally to laboratory- and non-laboratory-based research.

The bare essentials of doing research are:

(1) Being able to access and read the literature effectively, in a focused and directed manner. It is important that the student should be able to identify the key questions addressed by a publication, identify the strategy used to address them and determine whether it was appropriate, and verify whether the results presented justify the conclusions. The ability to learn suitable techniques from the literature should be developed later.
(2) The student must construct an overall world-view of the subject.
(3) A clear focus and understanding of the specific questions to be addressed is vital. Unless the student ‘owns’ the questions themselves the resulting work is unlikely to address them very effectively. This means that the student must understand precisely why the questions are being asked, their broader implications and why particular approaches are being used.
(4) The practicalities of research—it is important to clarify:
(a) The process of study design. Is the experiment chosen the best way to address the question? Is it flawed? Is it valid? Where and what are the potential sources of error?
(b) If undertaking clinical research, who is being studied and why. Is it ethical? Consider issues of study population, disease classification, activity and damage.
(c) How the appropriate controls will be identified and performed.
(d) How clear and precise record keeping will be undertaken.
(e) How the data will be analysed and interpreted.

(5) Research ethics and the responsibilities of a scientist to both the scientific community and the general population.

The supervisor and student have a joint responsibility to ensure that the student learns these essentials.

The apprenticeship model for research supervision has stood the test of time when used properly. Good supervision is more likely to be rewarded by an enthusiastic and productive student who frequently becomes a valuable long-term collaborator. Student and supervisor are in many ways tied together for the rest of their careers. Failure can often come back to haunt both parties.


    Choosing a supervisor
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 
Some students may have a great yearning to study a given topic, which is clearly best undertaken at a particular centre. However, most rheumatologists in training end up undertaking MD or PhD research, more as a result of serendipity, i.e. being in a particular place at a given time. This is not necessarily the best method to go about choosing how to spend three years of your life! Any potential student coming into contact with a potential supervisor, would do well to ask him/her some particular questions about the proposed research and their potential role in it, e.g. what is it about; is it relevant to rheumatology; will there be sufficient support to facilitate the work; is there a clear and testable hypothesis; does the question posed in the hypothesis seem worth asking; is the question clear and well defined; is it interesting? A logical extension of these questions is whether the potential supervisor has an overall strategy for his/her research group which is logical, clear and internally consistent. It is axiomatic in research that the quality of the answers obtained relates directly to the quality of the questions asked.

The student would be well advised to assess the potential supervisor's track record. The Internet greatly facilitates enquiries about the publication record (and not just how many articles have been published but in which journals). General enquiries should ascertain whether the potential supervisor has a good reputation for providing responsible ‘care and attention’ to previous students. It may be a good idea to talk to one or two. A good supervisor should be well versed in the local university guidelines for supervision and with the rules for completion and submission of theses. It is also essential that MD and PhD studies are adequately funded at the outset before the studentship gets under way. Although local sources may be available for many potential rheumatology researchers, obtaining funds will often mean writing applications to major funding bodies such as the Arthritis Research Campaign and/or the Wellcome Trust.

From the potential student's point of view, especially students seeking to undertake more laboratory-based research when they may well not have undertaken such research for a number of years, it is important to establish the conditions in which the potential supervisor's laboratory operates. Are there people around to help answer the simple practical questions if the supervisor him/herself no longer does bench work or is not available? Are other adjunctive sources of help, e.g. a statistician, readily available? Likewise, once results have been obtained is specialist expertise available to help analyse them.


    Choosing a student
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 
It can be flattering to have potential students knocking on your door and asking to come and work for you. However, once a particular topic has been agreed as a potential focus for a thesis, the supervisor is probably well advised to ask the student to write an essay based on the current literature about the problem to be addressed. The quality of the product and insight into the problems ahead should be assessed before entering into a ‘solemn and binding’ commitment to take on the student.


    Supervision—getting going
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 
A good supervisor will always emphasize the importance of reading voraciously to his/her student. The thing which, rightly, most annoys an MD or PhD examiner is the inability of a candidate to be able to understand his/her experiments in context. Background reading is essential, whatever your project and as much as possible should be undertaken before the student's research starts. From day one the student must keep a full record of their experiments which is available for the supervisor to review. Obviously the degree of supervision will depend on the MD/PhD student's prior knowledge and expertise. With some students, especially in the early days, the supervisor may need to spend several hours per week providing detailed and critical guidance as necessary.

The perfectly planned and executed 3-yr series of experiments without an identifiable hitch, is a pipe dream. Indeed on occasion a side experiment provides a far more interesting answer and/or series of other experiments than the original plan. In this case, as in others, chance favours the prepared mind—but you do of course have to have the chance! However, any decision to change radically the course of an MD/PhD programme requires careful consideration by both the supervisor and the student.

Those undertaking clinical research must pay special attention to ethical issues—getting ethical committee approval for research which involves patients in any way is not a formality.

Whatever type of research a student might be doing, it is important to encourage him/her to make the best possible use of information sources, e.g. the library, the Internet, the relevant local seminars. Do not hesitate to consult statisticians early, acquire computer skills if you do not have them, and do not underestimate writing up time (see later).


    Supervision—following it through
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 
Clinicians undertaking laboratory research invariably come from an environment in which work is orientated around the fulfilment of well-defined tasks. One of the main difficulties of entering a laboratory is that the whole ethos of work is different. Whole weeks may pass without successfully completing any task. Although it is always possible to learn from failure, sometimes the lessons can be learned too late to be useful. Days are often unstructured, until one learns to organize one's own laboratory time.

Regular consultation between supervisor and student is essential. The precise frequency must vary according to the way things are going, the availability of the supervisor (he/she is encouraged to be liberal with their time) and the extent to which the student is able to ‘self start’ his/her own experiments. In any event we recommend that a supervisor should meet the student on a formal basis at least once a week, making themselves available as and when required on other occasions. However, the student should be aware that their supervisor has many other calls on his/her time and make their demands reasonable!

In an increasing number of universities the system of ‘one student–one supervisor’ is being replaced by a supervisory committee. This comprises a ‘day-to-day’ supervisor who can advise/direct on immediate issues/problems, a second supervisor who can help advise on the direction the research is taking and finally an external advisor. This is usually someone from outside the student's own department who can be called upon to arbitrate or be impartial if the student has complaints about the supervisor or vice versa. This system really seems to work. The onus is on the student to arrange the meetings specified in a log book (usually 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 yr, 18 months, 2 yr, 30 months).

Many universities now insist on registering students initially for an MPhil or equivalent and only changing this to a PhD after the production and assessment of a 1-yr transfer report. This process keeps both the student and the supervisor on their toes.

Once the data have begun to ‘flow’, the student should be encouraged to communicate it. The local academic meeting is a good starting place, but regional, national and international meetings should then be considered. Even more important is getting your work published in decent journals. A thesis based on three or four peer-reviewed manuscripts is much more likely to ‘sail through unscathed’. However, the student must be made aware early on of how long it takes to write up. Probably 6–9 months before the end of the project is due the supervisor and student should review the strategy for those experiments to be completed and those to be considered optional extras. These concerns about timing apply in particular to students planning an immediate return to full-time clinical duties. It is extremely hard to write up a thesis if you have a busy clinical job.


    Conclusions
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 
Doing research is not easy. Most students go through a bad patch (often at 3–6 months into their research time) and need support and encouragement to persist and succeed. Good supervision cannot, unfortunately, be taken for granted and not every student can be a research natural. In Tables 1Go and 2Go we highlight some key issues for both student and supervisor which should help to eliminate the more obvious pitfalls.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Suggested check list for a potential supervisor

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Suggested check list for a potential student

 


    Notes
 
Correspondence to: D. A. Isenberg. Back

Submitted 6 December 1999; Accepted 14 December 1999


    Reference
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 

  1. Gordon C, Salmon M. Postgraduate degrees for rheumatology trainees: an options appraisal of MD, PhD and MSc degrees. Rheumatology1999;38:1290–3.[Free Full Text]

 

    Recommended reading
 Top
 Introduction
 Choosing a supervisor
 Choosing a student
 Supervision—getting going
 Supervision—following it...
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Recommended reading
 
Delamont S, Atkinson P, Odette P. Supervising the PhD—A guide to success. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1997.

Phillips EM, Pugh DS. How to get a PhD. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1994.

Holtom D, Fisher E. Enjoy writing your science thesis or dissertation! London: Imperial College Press, 1999.