More than a signature: how advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction

338 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Promoting doctoral students' research self-efficacy: combining academic guidance with autonomy support (2011, background): “Greater supervisor availability and feedback is associated with more positive student evaluations of supervision quality (Hockey, 1991; Kam, 1997; Zhao, Golde, & McCormick, 2007) and students are more satisfied when they receive needed emotional support and feel valued and accepted (Hockey, 1991; Zh”
Motivation, Satisfaction, and Innate Psychological Needs (2012, background): “…been linked to perceived research self-efficacy (Paglis et al, 2006), dissertation progress (Faghihi et al, 1999), satisfaction (Hesli et al, 2003; Lan & Williams, 2005; Suhre et al, 2007; Zhao et al, 2007), productivity (Lan & Williams, 2005), and completion of doctoral program (Lovitts, 2001).”
Determinants of PhD student satisfaction: the roles of supervisor, department, and peer qualities (2019, background): “These findings do not categorically contradict prior research suggesting the academic qualities of supervisors are important to PhD student satisfaction (e.g. Donald, Saroyan and Denison 1995; Zhao, Golde, and McCormick 2007; Bedggood and Donovan 2012).”
Doctoral supervision . . . a view from above, below and the middle! (2008, background): “Zhao, Golde, and McCormick ( 2007 , 263) suggest ‘a satisfactory relationship between doctoral students and their advisors is an essential component of successful doctoral training’.”