Hello, I’m Elmeida Effendy and I’m from Universitas Sumatera Utara, in Medan, Indonesia.
In large public universities, research supervisors often guide many postgraduate students at the same time. However, one thing remains constant: the quality of the supervision relationship is often the single most important factor in whether a doctoral student succeeds.
Early in my career as a lecturer, I believed supervision was mainly about correcting mistakes. I carefully marked a student’s grant proposal with detailed critiques. And when she left the meeting, however, she looked discouraged.
Months later, she was considering withdrawing from her actual programme. That experience taught me an important lesson. Supervision is not just about correcting research. It is about building a relationship that inspires learning and growth.
Over the years, conversations with doctoral students have revealed three things they value most from their supervision.
First, clarity of expectations. Students want to know how often meetings will happen, what a strong chapter should look like and how feedback will be given.
Without clear expectations, uncertainty quickly turns into anxiety.
Second, responsiveness. Even a short reply acknowledging that a draft has been received can make a big difference. When students wait weeks without any response, they often feel invisible and uncertain about their progress.
Third, emotional as well as intellectual support. Doctoral research can be an isolating journey. Students need supervisors who recognise challenges, encourage persistence and provide constructive guidance rather than only technical corrections.
Supervision is not simply an academic task. It is also a mentoring relationship. And improving supervision doesn’t always requires major institutional reforms.
Often small, consistent actions can have a significant impact.
One practical approach is to create a written supervision agreement at the first meeting. This should recommend outlines, meeting schedules, feedback, timelines and mutual responsibilities.
It helps both supervisor and student begin the relationship with shared expectations.
Another helpful practice is to schedule regular meetings. When meetings occur at predictable times, students feel supported and progress becomes more structured.
Feedback style also matters. Starting with what works well in a student’s writing before discussing improvements can build confidence while still encouraging academic rigour.
Finally, responding promptly to students’ submissions, even with a brief acknowledgement, shows respect for their efforts and keeps communication open.
These small habits gradually create a supervision environment based on trust and collaboration.
Some of the most meaningful supervision moments happen not when we correct grammar or citation styles but when we help students rediscover the purpose of their research.
For example, one student studying traditional agricultural practice initially wrote in a very technical and mechanical way.
Instead of focusing only on revisions, we discussed why the research matters, how it could support farmers in foreign policy and contribute to climate decisions.
After that conversation, her writing transformed, not because it had changed, but because she understood the broader impact of her work.
This is when supervision becomes truly meaningful, when we help students see themselves not only as a student, but as future scholars.
Effective supervision is not about producing perfect dissertations, it is about developing independent researchers who can think critically, navigate uncertainty and contribute knowledge.
With great expectations, regular communications, supportive feedback and genuine mentorship, supervisors can help doctoral students not only finish their research but truly flourish. Thank you.
Elmeida Effendy is head of the psychiatry study programme at Universitas Sumatera Utara.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment