Centre for Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University College London, Arthur Stanley House, 4050 Tottenham Street, London WIP 9PG and Department of Rheumatology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
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undertaken in this way will inevitably be poorly designed, controlled, executed and unpublishable (or would be better unpublished).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:
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 |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
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 |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Supervisiongetting going |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
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 mindbut 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 issuesgetting 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).
![]() |
Supervisionfollowing it through |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
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 studentone 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 69 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 |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
![]() |
Notes |
---|
Submitted 6 December 1999; Accepted 14 December 1999
![]() |
Reference |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Recommended reading |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
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.