Joint supervision for graduate studies

[nuih]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of joint supervision?

 

I was jointly supervised when I completed my undergraduate thesis, and I didn't like it very much. Mostly because the revisions/comments I got from both supervisors were sometimes contradictory. Overall I'm glad I completed an undergraduate thesis with two supervisors though, because that pretty much filled the two rec letters requirement for graduate applications, and they were pleasant to talk to and ask things, etc. But I prefer to stay away from joint supervision. I don't think I can escape it though if I were to choose my top choice so yeah... just wondering what are the advantages and disadvantages if I were jointly supervised in grad school (MA to PhD).

 

Thanks all!

[ritapita]

I have joint supervisors for my graduate work and I love it.  It can be a challenge but I think, at least in some instances, it can be very beneficial.  They have differing approaches, but also compliment each other.  I ensure that I meet with them both together, and separately.   As with any input, and as you will learn further as you progress through graduate work, it is important to weigh their insights and recommendations but ultimately it must be your work.  You must defend what you feel strongly about and determine how to incorporate their guidance.  As you gain experience with this type of situation, your management of input from two supervisors will become easier and more fulfilling.  It will not always be what you want it to be, but if you have two people that have your best interests in mind, and provide good guidance, it will be rewarding.  

[nuih]

Wow, thank you for sharing, flyingewe! I'm not experienced with strongly defending my ideas and input yet, and at all when I was doing my ugrad thesis. I guess that is why it was so stressful, like juggling the comments and deciding which one to 'obey'. 

[fuzzylogician]

When it works it's great, but there are some pitfalls. The main ones you have already mentioned, but they can be compounded when it's a PhD program and a PhD thesis. If you have two advisors, you have twice as many people to keep satisfied than usual. You need to take into account the comments and guidance from both of them; you need to figure out a system for accepting/deferring comments from them (which you generally need to do -- you don't always want to implement every suggestion everyone makes for your work), and you need to figure out how to deal with conflicting advice. This kind of arrangement usually works better if your two advisors specialize in different subfields or different techniques so they don't step on each other's toes, so to speak. It's also better if, at the end of the day, there is just one person who has the final say on things relating to your education, like when you are ready to defend your thesis, or what courses you need to take for your degree. Things have a tendency to fall through the cracks if they are not anybody's responsibility in particular. 

 

That said, if you have a system in place, it can be great. You get twice as much support, twice as many ideas, a fresh new perspective on things if you show work you've been doing with one advisor to the other one; and probably two strong supporters who can support you through your PhD and beyond. 

[nuih]

It's also better if, at the end of the day, there is just one person who has the final say on things relating to your education, like when you are ready to defend your thesis, or what courses you need to take for your degree. Things have a tendency to fall through the cracks if they are not anybody's responsibility in particular. 

 

I would have never thought about this. How would you decide, or ask, if appropriate, which supervisor should have the final say in these matters? Right now I would think it should be based on gut feeling, or maybe whoever I had asked about graduate supervision first, but I'm wondering if it's more complicated than that.

[psych face]

I know several people with more than one and they seem happy enough. I suggested in my statement that I would prefer it.

But, while you have mentioned not having a lot of experience arguing with professors about things like that, I've gotten pretty comfortable with it so it would probably be easier for me to handle.

I know grad students who still have difficulty with that. They can't stand up for their ideas very well or voice their thesis with confidence when it is questioned. I feel obligated to give them pep talks and encourage them to remember they are in charge of their idea and not let anything scare them into doing something else, be willing to say what you think, and try really hard to articulate it even if it's hard to find the words when the moment comes. Honestly, it's really hard for me to watch people freeze up and get intimidated like that. I feel so bad for them.

[fuzzylogician]

I would have never thought about this. How would you decide, or ask, if appropriate, which supervisor should have the final say in these matters? Right now I would think it should be based on gut feeling, or maybe whoever I had asked about graduate supervision first, but I'm wondering if it's more complicated than that.

 

There isn't a set procedure so it will depend on the situation. I imagine it will work itself out through a combination of factors, including how the joint supervision comes about (are you assigned one supervisor, then invite the other to join, or are you immediately assigned to both), who you get along with better, if you end up working more closely with just one supervisor because e.g. your interests have shifted or the other supervisor becomes less available, if one is more inclined to take on these administrative roles for students, if one more senior/busier/less accessible, etc. You might also start out with one arrangement and then re-negotiate it later, because things change over the course of a PhD program. Some supervisors like to discuss these issues up front but others just let things be and don't discuss them unless there is a problem. Personally I hate waiting until there is a problem, I think it's much better to have a quick discussion and an understanding when everyone is on board, so there shouldn't be any as many problems because of people's expectations or unspoken assumptions. But as a first pass I think it's best to meet the people involved, get a sense for their personality and how they like to work, and take it from there.

 

From my own experience: I had two co-chairs of my dissertation committee. At some point one of them suggested that I choose one of them to be the one with the final say on when I am done with revisions, so I (and they) don't need to do everything twice. It was during the summer and there were complicated travel plans involved, so I chose the one that was there longer and who could better keep in touch with what I was doing. Sometimes it's all about the logistics. 

[CogPsych2015]

I work in a lab with two PIs and have for most of my undergraduate years. I absolutely love it. It's an additional set of eyes on everything I write, a different set of ideas, and another person supporting you along the way. It also came in handy when I needed letters of rec, as I already had two from the one lab. It helps that these two get along well and work together on basically everything they do.