Recommendations: Towards better supervision during the PhD 

🎯 Strengthen the role and regularity of the supervisory committee and clarify roles and expectations

The supervisory committee is, in principle, a key pillar of the doctoral journey. It is important to define the framework for how the committee will operate from the outset: the frequency and format of meetings, expectations for the doctoral candidate, and the contributions expected from each member. This initial discussion between the committee members and the doctoral candidate will not only help ensure that all parties share a common vision, but also allow for agreement on day-to-day functioning and mutual expectations, helping to avoid misunderstandings or disappointments.

Developing a “supervisory committee guide” can serve as a practical reference to clarify how the committee operates, while also outlining roles and mutual commitments. A charter formalising an agreement between the PhD candidate and the committee members, such as a “supervisory committee partnership agreement”, can also be useful. This charter, established at the beginning of the PhD, could include provisional meeting dates, serve as a framework for collaboration, and clarify mutual responsibilities.

📌 Examples of good practices

• Paris-Saclay University has developed a "Supervisory Committee Guide" intended for members of doctoral supervisory committees. This document clearly outlines the expectations of their role, recalls the rules governing the organisation and functioning of the committee, and provides resources as well as answers to frequently asked questions.

• Toulouse University requires the signing of a charter that formalises an agreement between the doctoral candidate, the thesis supervisor, the co-supervisor, the director of the research unit, the director of the doctoral school, and the institution with which the doctoral candidate is affiliated.

• A South African university launched a project in which doctoral candidates, postdocs, and supervisors reflected on the practice of co-supervision. Two sets of guidelines emerged from this initiative: one outlining what co-supervisors should clarify in advance (page 4), and another on how to support a co-supervisor with no prior experience (page 5).

🎯 Pay close attention to the composition of the supervisory sommittee

The quality of supervision also depends on the composition of the committee. It may be wise to appoint a “chair” within the committee, distinct from the thesis supervisor. This person could serve as a guarantor of the smooth running of the process, notably by organising, facilitating, and following up on meetings, as well as ensuring deadlines related to the submission of the annual report are met (see below). This choice can help distribute responsibilities more evenly and strengthen the committee’s overall functioning.

Including a member from outside the academic world can also be a valuable asset: it enriches perspectives and helps anticipate the doctoral candidate’s professional transition after the PhD.

Finally, the composition of the committee should be carefully considered, with particular attention paid to preventing any potential conflicts of interest among its members.

📌 Example of good practice

• At the University of Lyon, during each meeting of the supervisory committee, all doctoral candidates have the opportunity to speak privately with the committee member who is external to the doctoral school. This exchange provides a space for candidates to share their perspective on the progress of their thesis. It is this external member who is then responsible for drafting the report on the doctoral work.

🎯Structure supervisory committee meetings around clear objectives and well-defined topics, with systematic production of a co-signed annual report

Implementing a co-signed annual report submitted by the supervisory committee to the relevant doctoral commission across all universities in the WBF would help harmonise practices and improve clarity. To ensure the effectiveness of this system, a clear and unified deadline could be set for report submission, with automatic reminders sent to doctoral candidates and committee members who have not yet submitted their report by the due date.

Supervisory committee meetings benefit from being organised around well-defined themes. This structure ensures rigorous follow-up and helps clarify expectations for all parties involved. The following points may be addressed during these meetings:

• Progress of the research work, adherence to the overall timeline, and adjustment of objectives if necessary;

• Challenges encountered and proposed solutions;

• Needs for additional training (methodology, tools, transferable skills);

• Opportunities for research dissemination (publications, presentations, knowledge transfer);

• International mobility opportunities;

• Post-PhD career plans and actions to be considered;

• The doctoral candidate’s reflections on their experience, providing a space for personal expression;

• Planning of the next committee meeting.

📌 Examples of good practices

• The supervisory committee report at the University of Lyon includes several key sections: training required for the successful progress of the PhD, the overall progress of the thesis—including the conditions under which the research is conducted (material, psychological, relational aspects, etc.)—the valorisation of the thesis (e.g., publications), and finally, the timeline and schedule. The report also contains a confidential comments section reserved for the doctoral candidate. This section allows the doctoral school to gain insight into the candidate’s perception of how the thesis year covered by the meeting has unfolded.

• The regulations of the University of Mons provide for a three-part meeting format: “First, the committee hears from the PhD candidate and assesses the progress of their work. Second, the committee meets with the candidate without the presence of the supervisor or co-supervisor. Third, the supervisor and co-supervisor are given the opportunity to speak in the absence of the candidate.” This structure is designed to ensure a balanced space for expression for all parties involved, in line with the principles of supervision and evaluation.

🎯Clarify roles within research teams

• Establish a systematic onboarding and integration procedure for every new researcher joining a team, particularly those with international profiles. This procedure would familiarise them with the unit’s practices and structure, and help identify the roles, rights, and responsibilities of each team member, including their own.

• Define responsibilities for day-to-day supervision, especially in large teams, in order to better structure the support provided to doctoral candidates and prevent situations where they receive limited guidance throughout their journey.

• Formalise the roles of those providing daily supervision by assigning them an official status — such as co-supervisor, committee member, or assistant supervisor. This would help officially recognise their involvement, clarify expectations, and ensure continuity and coherence in doctoral supervision.

📌 Example of good practice

• At Imperial College London, the role of postdocs in doctoral supervision has been formalised by assigning them the status of assistant supervisor. The appointment process, the framework for their support and professional development, as well as their roles and responsibilities, are clearly defined and regulated.

🎯 Reinforce a personalised, evolving, and high-quality doctoral supervision, supported by the training of supervisors

• Encourage each supervisor to receive specific training for their supervisory role, which is distinct from teaching or research. This role involves developing key skills such as the ability to provide constructive feedback, positive communication, and general competencies in leadership, team management, and conflict resolution.

• Personalise supervision based on the individual needs of each doctoral candidate (e.g., autonomy), the phase of the PhD (e.g., initiation, data collection/analysis, writing, finalisation), and the complexity of the project.

• Mutually clarify expectations from the start of the PhD, particularly regarding meeting frequency and the distribution of responsibilities, and reassess them regularly as the project progresses.

• Acknowledge that supervision standards may vary, but minimum thresholds must be guaranteed (e.g., at least one meeting per month between the supervisor and the doctoral candidate).

• Ensure the establishment of mechanisms and designate confidential contacts in case of supervision difficulties (mediators, well-being advisors, ethics officers, etc.). Inform doctoral candidates from the beginning of their journey, especially during welcome days or via doctoral guides and platforms. 

• Recognise and promote quality supervision.

📌 Examples of good practices

• UMons has recently established a doctoral charter that defines a clear framework for balanced collaboration between the doctoral candidate and their (co-)supervisors, in order to align mutual expectations and foster a constructive relationship.

• Checklist of good supervision de l’Université de Freiburg   

• PhD-supervisor charter de KULeuven clarifies mutual expectations and responsabilities. 

• Several universities in Germany have introduced supervision awards, granted on the basis of nominations by doctoral candidates: https://gc.gs.tum.de/supervisory-award/  

• Irish National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning Guide: Developing an institutional framework for supporting supervisors of research students : https://cora.ucc.ie/bitstreams/0251cf41-4bfc-48c0-8f77-0b059ebe5549/download  

🎯Promote peer networking to reduce isolation risks

• Encourage informal peer interactions, particularly in disciplines with more solitary work (e.g., Humanities), or where meetings with supervisors or committees are less frequent.For example, presentation meetings of research work between different units within the same faculty can be encouraged and organised regularly.

• Support the creation of PhD candidate groups to foster mutual support (e.g., writing groups, discussion circles).

📌Examples of good practices 

• The PhD House at University of Liège and the University of Mons and the PhD & Postdoc Society at ULB provide dedicated spaces to encourage networking, collaboration, and exchange among early-career researchers. 

• The REFERENT programme is a mentoring initiative aimed at organising peer support on mental health within the Marie Curie Association. 

🎯Provide greater support for job transition

• Integrate professional development activities into doctoral training (e.g., workshops, skills assessments, external mentoring).

• Encourage supervisors to discuss post-PhD career prospects with their doctoral candidates.

📚 Further reading: 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Supervision Guidelines (2025)

Eurodoc Statement on Doctoral Supervision (2025)

Insights from practice:  A handbook for supervisors of modern doctorate candidates (2017)