deciding whether to supervise a PhD project

[violet]

At my university (like most I think) the matter of whether or not to supervise a PhD project is left to the supervisor. So how do you decide whether it's worth your time, bearing in mind that the workload allocation for PhD supervision is always going to fall short and it can be a thankless task that distracts from one's own research (in the humanities) if one agrees to supervise the wrong or too many projects. Supervising PhD projects can be rewarding but it can also be a distraction. So how do you decide whether a given project is right for you? I am posting this in the research rubric because that is for me the main question—when it does and does not benefit my own research, and also because most universities treat PhD supervision as part of one's research rather than teaching responsibilities.

[Hegemony]

I think turning down a PhD dissertation is a risky proposition. If you're leaving students hanging because they're in your field but you won't supervise them, or if you're sending all the (say) Victorian literature students over to Professor Smith because you want to save your time for something else, it will get you a bad reputation in the department. My sense is that it is essentially the responsibility of tenured profs to agree to supervise any halfway rational student in their field, up to a certain number of students. And when promotion time comes, you will be compared to other profs who have indeed pitched in with PhD supervision.

[Hibush]

Being a good doctoral advisor is a huge investment, so it should have a lot of return for you. I find that the best return is when you can have regular discussions, mine are weekly, with the student about the new findings, how methodolgy affects what you can find, and how it affects the greater context of what you are working on. That is stimulating to my own scholarship and really helps keep me inspired. The student's project is closely related to mine (because I have to get the money to support the student) so that I can be helpful but distinct enought that they develop their own niche.

[traductio]

I've supervised three students through to the end of their PhD (plus maybe twenty MA theses). None have ever had a direct link to my own research, but I have benefited from them all. The first introduced me to a really fantastic theorist of discourse (Johnny Saldaña, whose work I've recommended to countless students since). The second introduced me to classical Greek notions of rhetorical invention. The third got me thinking about specific phenomena in current news reporting. (I teach in communication, but with a strong humanist bent.)

All this to say, my criteria are different from yours, and they've worked well for me. (And if I decided whose work would benefit my own, I'd have supervised no one.) My questions are -- is there enough overlap that I can supervise this person resonsibly? Do I think they'll do good work? Are they interesting to talk to?

(And I'm glad to say all three of my students found tenure-track jobs. That's a measure of success I'm proud of.)

[poiuy]

In your Department, School, University, is there an expectation that you will supervise Master's or PhD students? Is this written into your tenure and promotion documents somewhere? Do you report these on your annual forms?

This is the case in my University. In fact, if faculty are seen as 'falling short' of 'contributing to the graduate program' by supervising graduate students, they are required by the system to teach an extra class. The number of students one needs to supervise is never explicitly stated, which allows for wiggle room but can also lead to difficult conversations. I have found this a structural flaw in our system - e.g. teaching loads are formally set and determined by the Department Chair, but if some faculty are overloaded with graduate students and some underloaded, there is no mechanism to share the students more equitably, even keeping students' interests and preferences in mind. This can create and does create some major inequities from time to time.

If your University has similar policies, then there is more pressure to accept students to supervise. If you are less often approached by students, then you might find yourself saying 'yes' to almost all of them, and that brings its own issues of managing students' progress without tanking your own time. If you are besieged by aspirants, then there is more scope to be selective.