# data[].attributes.body
Ph.D. student who was looking for expert advice at the beginning of their Ph.D. I read the paper that was going to be the basis of their research, and while able to give some assistance, the paper was completely flawed in my opinion. I had one of my colleagues read the paper who was an expert in statistics, and he agreed with my assessment. However, he was unwilling to get involved in supervision as he had no faith in the premises of the paper at all. Unfortunately, 3 years later the student came back to me, having proceeded with the research and now was having problems processing the data. I was unable to help him, and as far as other colleagues in statistics, that collected data was useless due to the flaws of the initial paper. I don't know what happened in the end, I suspect that he was still successful, but it just meant the erroneous research continued. What could have been done differently: we should have talked to student's supervisor and told them about our concerns at the beginning.

# data[].attributes.body
Co-supervisors joining supervisory meetings regularly.Open discussion between co-supervisors

# data[].attributes.body
Different areas of the supervisor's and co-supervisor's expertise, which could result in the co-supervisor's inefficient comments.

# data[].attributes.body
Having joint meetings once a month with whole supervisory panel

# data[].attributes.body
Borderline disrespectful behaviour by the principle supervisor towards the candidate. What responsibility do I have as a co-supervisor to call this out, and how?

# data[].attributes.body
Genuine role delegation at opportune times for specific tasks

# data[].attributes.body
Where the role becomes redundant because the lead supervisor runs everthing

# data[].attributes.body
Perpetually pushing out deadlines; lack of collaboration among supervisors; not having designated roles; lack of complementary expertise (major ontological and epistemological differences between supervisors)

# data[].attributes.body
Role division and regular meetings (we catch up as a team fortnightly although as a lead, I see my students weekly)

# data[].attributes.body
When co-supervisors work independently of each other. A lack of synchronicity and mixed messaging results.

# data[].attributes.body
I prefer the Co-Suervisor(s)'s contribution in directing the research to be based on their expertise. This involvement might be related to just a part (or parts) of the research, or its structure, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Informal meetings and check-ins outside of regularly scheduled 'deadline' meetings. I find many idea have been sparked in simple conversations over coffee.

# data[].attributes.body
Beginning meetings by going around to all students (Honours and HDR) asking what they are working on and where they are blocked, and asking where others can help out.

# data[].attributes.body
Regular communication with co-supervisors, not just when you need something from them!

# data[].attributes.body
Regular monthly updates on lab work

# data[].attributes.body
Documentation of panel meetings and decisions. Student should lead but all panel members need to read and respond to avoid misunderstandings.

# data[].attributes.body
Regular catchups with candidate+whole sup team, no more than every 2nd month

# data[].attributes.body
"Someone else will take this" issue, e.g. around feedback on papers and chapter drafts