All students in the Institute have two supervisors, occasionally including one from the ATC staff. In many cases the student works almost exclusively with one of them, on the day-to-day level, while the other supervisor keeps a watching brief, following the progress made by the student.
The nature and quality of the relationships between students and supervisors are very much determined by the individuals involved, rather than anything inherent in the situation, and it is for each student and pair of supervisors to develop a way of working together that they find mutually satisfactory. Both the University and PPARC distribute booklets on good supervisor-student practice.
In the great majority of cases this proves to be possible and an amicable and profitable relationship develops, but in a very few cases it does not and so it is desirable for there to be procedures in place to handle such situations when they arise and, hopefully, to nip them in the bud before there is any danger of their becoming too serious.
Depending on the circumstances, PhD students with any sort of problem can speak to the Postgraduate Advisor, Postgraduate Course Organiser (John Peacock), Student Rep. or the Head of Institute (Andy Lawrence), all of whom will be happy to listen and act as an intermediary if required.
Procedures like those outlined below should not, of course, take the place of the informal interaction between student and supervisor, but should complement it and, where necessary, be useful where such interaction is problematic.
``First'' and ``Second'' Supervisors: The different aspects of responsibility for the student's progress should be divided explicitly between the two supervisors: the ``First'' Supervisor has responsibility for the day-to-day, `tactical' side, while the ``Second'' Supervisor has the overview, the `strategic' side. In the case where the two supervisors have equal prominence on the day-to-day side, then the University supervisor should be the ``Second'' Supervisor. The ``Second'' Supervisor should keep a close eye on the progress of the student's research, although s/he may play no active part in it.
Biannual meetings: Twice a year - in early October and early April, subject to mutual convenience - there should be meetings to discuss the student's progress in the previous six months and to outline goals for the next six months. These meetings should be between: i) the two supervisors; ii) the ``Second'' Supervisor and the student; iii) all three together.
These meetings should be largely unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, where there are no great problems, although they may be useful in allowing a discussion of longer term goals than is often possible when day-to-day matters intervene.