Session 2: What is the right balance of hands-on or hands-off in supervision? by Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP)

Post any resources here

SharedPracticeNetwork — 2026-04-20 10:05:31 UTC

If you have any resources or links that you think others might find useful, please post them here!

2026-04-28 15:39:04 UTC

Being more hands-on at the start of the PhD process, with the ideal of shifting to being more hands-off over time. Being hands-on when reviewing work etc (which will likely pick up towards the end of the PhD) and if/when there are difficulties/pinch points for the student e.g. issues with ethics/governance, illness/life outside of studies. There's an importance in remaining attentive to what the student needs and how this might fluctuate, but working towards greater autonomy.

2026-04-30 09:34:44 UTC

I think contingent on the supervisee. I'd tend towards as hands-off as possible, only becoming more involved if required.

mtrbrooks — 2026-04-30 09:43:06 UTC

This is something I often discuss with my supervisee at the start of the process so expectations are clear. I am typically more involved at the start with regular meetings, with the expectation that the supervisee grows in confidence and autonomy throughout the process and the support becomes less frequent. I would think they become the expert by the end, teaching us a thing or two! That said, I think a responsive supervisory style is helpful to deal with any personal circumstances that may affect progress, or if there research-related challenges that crop up during the PhD. In those cases, I would naturally be more involved.

2026-04-30 15:11:38 UTC

The correct balance of hands-on and hands-off will vary from student/project to student/project, and is likely to fluctuate over the term of the supervision. But, at the end of the day, the important thing to ensure is that the project is the student's project and independence should be encouraged and developed.

2026-04-30 21:51:23 UTC

I think this might vary at different times in the PhD journey too. Sometimes there may be a specific part of the project that needs closer support. Or sometimes the student might be going through something external to the project, which means they need a bit more support or more regular contact points.

2026-05-01 10:41:50 UTC

I try to offer options to the student, using a sliding scale of how hands off or hands on they would prefer their supervision to be. Sometimes students know what works best for them, sometimes they don't. Sometimes their idea of what ideal supervision is changes over time or in response to specific issues whether research or life-related. So 'balance' seems ike the ideal word here, its contingent on a great many factors.

fionakeenan — 2026-05-04 12:20:49 UTC

I feel this really depends on what stage the PhD researcher is at and what their expectations are. I do tend to calibrate myself to a supervisee's needs, and this doesn't always work - particularly when they are looking for support rather than a solution to a problem. A balance I am still learning!

2026-05-04 15:13:42 UTC

The balance between hands-on and hand-off supervision depends heavily on the student. But we need to adapt to the students' preferences only up to a point. If targets and deadlines are not being met, they might benefit from a more hands-on approach even if they initially didn't think so.

stefanocolombo2 — 2026-05-05 08:14:00 UTC

This will depend a lot on the student and the stage they're at in their PhD. I think it's important to make sure they know they're supported but also have the freedom to make decisions themselves. Keeping an open dialogue about their needs is useful in this regard

2026-05-05 08:47:11 UTC

I think this relates to the stage of the process the student is at - I see it having peaks and troughs as the reality of the project unfolds, however leaning towards being involved when required - e.g. the onus on the student to contact/arrange support where necessary. It is a skill to learn when to utilise resources, such as supervision, and to allow independent thought before turning to supervisor.

2026-05-05 09:33:31 UTC

I would think this depends a lot on the student and stage of the PhD to take into account the skills and training they already have, which areas they need to develop, and how they best work.

2026-05-05 10:58:11 UTC

I tend to shift this a lot depending on what I think the needs of the student are. This is not necessarily based just on what the student prefers. Some respond and improve with a more hands-on approach, but I have also worked with students who need to be encouraged to develop more independence. I think the hardest category for me is when they want a more hands on approach than is really beneficial to them.

Getting the balance

2026-05-05 11:56:06 UTC

I think this depends on where the student is on their PhD journey. First years often need more support than second or third years, while those writing up will need more support once again. There is also a difference between practical support - ethical research panel or organising fieldwork - and going over chapter drafts. I think this also depends on the student as well.

Flexibility

aetcheverry — 2026-05-05 11:59:36 UTC

I think there is no right answer as it depends both on the stage of the PhD and the particular student. Some students might prefer a more hands-on supervision. Also, it depends on the timing; at the beginning of the project, a more hands-on approach is likely to be better, while as the project advances, a more hands-off approach is more appropriate.

2026-05-05 12:28:24 UTC

I think it depends on the supervisee and also it varies throughout the PhD. I think it's clear to set out expectations but also to adapt to the student's needs as necessary. I would say that I tend to be much more involved at the start and during the writing up stage, whereas fieldwork is where I tend to be more hands-off, unless significant issues come up.

2026-05-05 12:50:17 UTC

Many excellent points already made here.

I would also guess it varies significantly with area of research as well and that the term "hands-off" is relative to the discipline norm. My students are in the lab and my office is very close, so they naturally ask questions and for advice as needed. I also have an ethical obligation to ensure we don't waste samples (animal work). So that may be considered hands-on. However, I tend to give them space to make mistakes and trouble-shoot independently, since this is where a lot of learning takes place and independence develops.

As others have said, this will develop as the PhD progresses, with less and less input needed. Also, I aim to make this dependent on the need of the individual student, but I also know this is very hard to master.

2026-05-05 15:49:04 UTC

I agree with what had been said above. It largely depends on the supervisee and the stage of the PhD journey. The approach should be agreed / changed accordingly and can be discussed within the supervisory team so that the supervisee is not confused about different approaches from the supervisory team.

2026-05-05 16:51:14 UTC

I think this depends on where a student is in the phd process. I think it is important to be more hands on at the start of a PhD as students are figuring out the focus and direction, but gradually give the students the reign. The idea is to get them to the point of being able to the lead the research project.

2026-05-05 20:12:17 UTC

I feel this is something that the team (supervisors and doctoral researcher) would agree on and adjust as things progress. I have a set of pilot analyses and activities as well as conversations and curiosity-driven activities that I like to have early on to diagnose and identify needs and contribute to the researcher building their timelines/plans of work and then provide feedback on progress. Those give me an idea of the researcher in front of me, their interests, strengths, skills, and then I can stand back and see how autonomous work grows from there. But I have seen how other doctoral researchers may not need that degree of initial scaffolding and are clear about where they are at and where they want to go, but may need more checking-in and support later in the process where self-doubt arises or progress may feel slow, or when shiny new projects/ideas may derail the process. In short, I think this is something that we would co-construct and adjust on a person-to-person basis. Being present, alert, and aware and open to dialogue helps us get a view of what is going on and when it might be time to step back or step back in.

2026-05-05 22:38:51 UTC

I agree that that this needs to be tailored to the supervisee. However, I think for most starting PhD students a hands-on approach is needed, especially in lab based subjects where techniques need to be demonstrated. I think that throughout the PhD there needs to be regular meetings scheduled, regardless of how independent they become. I've seen that when this doesn't happen, communication breaks down and the student is left feeling isolated in the final stages when as the thesis looms.

SianLouise — 2026-05-06 08:23:18 UTC

Tailored to what supervisee needs... also what supervisor needs. Sometimes the demand is hands-on when there is not sufficient space for preparation or engagement from supervisor, so balancing both needs. Though adapting as much as possible for what the supervisee requires while being able to state why and what will be offering the best for them. Regularity is useful until it is not! Communication regarding expectation and usefulness of sessions can include backing off and then both returning with more fuel. Security and consistency should aim to be focussed and productive, not become a crutch or simply a session of reassurance without progress.

Who holds the reins and when?

ruthmachen — 2026-05-06 11:33:25 UTC

Some great points made above which I echo. I would add that hands off approaches are also enabled by clarity and structure. E.g. If as a supervisor you can be confident that the student is clear on what's expected for the next meeting then its easier to be hands off in between and allow them to go away and give that a go. As long as meetings are regular enough there's room to catch any major unhelpful diversions/mistakes and guide back on track. So in this sense strong structure and clarity enable more freedom.

However, picking up on the expression used above about 'holding the reins' the risk of this approach is that the supervisor is the one holding the reins - guiding what 'the track' looks like and what a diversion is. I'd like to explore more the moment of transfer when and how to transfer the reins to the student and how this might be done well. My sense is that this is post-fieldwork as the student becomes guided by their own data. But perhaps others see the student holding the reins from the start?

2026-05-06 12:52:32 UTC

I think it likely depends on the student's needs and the stage of the PhD. Keeping an ongoing dialogue about student needs throughout the process can help to identify when the balance may need to be recalibrated. This can be facilitated with consistent and frequent meetings that sets the baseline for contact.

zunguz1 — 2026-05-07 07:30:49 UTC

It is quite a tough question to answer without knowing the study's design and the student's skill set. However, taking both of these into account, I think the best approach is to partner with the student and allocate tasks through consultative processes. This will ensure that the division of tasks is fair and that students are not overburdened with responsibilities that they have no capacity to carry.

2026-05-07 07:34:34 UTC

I'm not sure about this question. My supervisory process was quite hands off, but my supervisor was always available - often socially, for dinner, etc - so was ready to offer advice/support when needed. My feeling is that I would tend to provide more support to the student, especially at the outset. And then moderate engagement based on their needs. Having said that, I am mindful that a key component of the PhD is producing researchers capable of working independently, so there could potentially be some challenges if a student still requests alot of involvement in say the third year. So I suppose setting research independence as an objective early on and then discussion how we mutually work towards that.

2026-05-08 09:59:16 UTC

This session was a very good reminder of the importance of considering the strengths/skills/working style of each of the members of the supervision team and the student and establishing some ground rules/expectations.