The revised PhD regulations require that, where possible, all PhD candidates have the following supervision arrangement in addition to the appointment of a main supervisor:

• either one or more co-supervisors, or
• an advisory committee or advisor.

This requirement exists over and above the increasingly common practice of having multiple supervisors for academic reasons. It has given rise to a proliferation of joint supervisions across the University without always an accompanying understanding of the implications. Yet joint supervision is not a panacea for all supervision ills. Indeed, it poses as many risks as it offers benefits. Effective joint supervision depends on good practices, some of which are outlined below.

The good practices described here draw on the collective input of a group of Graduate Advisors, supervisors and PhD students who met with Barbara Grant (Centre for Professional Development) and Matthew Fitzsimons (University Mediator).

There are five sections:

1. The benefits of joint supervision;
2. The risks of joint supervision;
3. Some models for joint supervision;
4. Advice for good practice to supervisors;
5. Advice for good practice to students.

• provides back-up for supervisors on leave or suffering illness;
• broadens the range of expertise, perspectives, world-views available to the student;
• broadens the range of personalities available to the student;
• the supervisor develops more links with other staff on campus, extends their knowledge, may learn different skills for supervision, shares responsibility for the student;
• the student can tap into more resources and networks, can share needs and demands around, may be less likely to have to move in one direction (eg, of a particular supervisor’s expertise);
• thesis, being more broadly prepared, may be more likely to pass;
• different supervisors can fill different positions of value to the student (eg, culture, gender etc).

• the student can get caught between supervisors with different views;
• it may be practically difficult to arrange times for meeting together;
• in the end, no-one may manage the process overall;
• the student may get no supervision;
• requires good negotiation skills on part of both student and supervisors which can’t be taken for granted;
• complex relationships can occur eg, in which one person plays off the others, or two people unite to pressure the other;
• may be harder to agree on a direction for the project;
• different expectations, such as attitudes to deadlines, in different departments or faculties could lead to difficulties;
• status, cultural, gender, philosophical differences between supervisors could create tensions.

Joint supervision can take various forms, each of which means a different level of contribution from the supervisors or advisors involved. The model to be used should be deduced from the rationale for the choice of supervisors.

The model should be transparent to all concerned. It may change over time and, if so, agreements about how the joint supervision operates would need to be revisited.

• co-supervision (50/50) in which supervisors contribute more or less equally;
• primary/secondary (30-40/70-60) in which one supervisor oversees the research and the other makes specific but substantial contributions in area of expertise;
• primary/advisors (80/20) in which one supervisor oversees the research and the other/s make specific but limited contributions in area of expertise;
• primary/advisory committee (90/10);
• primary and back-up (100% primary unless leave, illness occurs).

• begin with an initial meeting between each supervisor and the student separately to begin process of forming a working relationship;
• recognise that it is your professional responsibility to raise the matters below (it is often more difficult for the student).

• early on, have an "establishment" meeting of supervisors and student to talk explicitly about how the joint supervision will work;
• agree on relative contribution from supervisors;
• agree on the approach to be used in the research project;
• work on the student’s proposal together (so you all know what you’re getting into);
• agree on meetings: separate or joint, or sometimes one and sometimes the other;
• agree on what the student can expect from each of you;
• agree on the milestones for the period ahead;
• agree on who is responsible for managing the overall process, who calls meetings, how email can be used, how feedback will be given;
• talk about the likelihood that the supervision relationship will change over time;
• talk about potential problems and what you will do if things go wrong;

• establish that the student can talk to any other person about their work, so that student is not dependent on supervisors only.

• occasionally meet with/contact the other supervisor/s only.

• "choose" supervisors who can make different contributions to your research project;
• meet with each supervisor separately first because each working relationship will be different.

It is your supervisors’ responsibility to initiate a joint meeting between the supervision "group". However, if they do not do this, suggest it and put these issues on the agenda:

• agree on relative contribution from supervisors;
• agree on the approach to be used in the research project;
• work on the student’s proposal together (so you all know what you’re getting into);
• agree on meetings: separate or joint, or sometimes one and sometimes the other;
• agree on what you can expect from each of the supervisors;
• agree on who is responsible for managing the overall process, who calls meetings, how email can be used, how feedback will be given;
• talk about potential problems and what you will do if things go wrong.

Along the way:

• if you do not always meet together, have occasional meetings to revisit shared understandings;
• keep both supervisors informed about what you are doing and what decisions are being made;
• if things change in the supervision (eg, relative contributions of supervisors, or need to include someone else), revisit your agreements;
• meet all together for milestones eg, completing the proposal, preparing to give a departmental seminar or conference paper, writing the annual report;
• join any departmental or faculty groups for graduate students that you can (look for support and motivation outside of supervision);
• form your own reading and/or writing groups (ditto).

June, 2000