best dissertation advisor review

The process of selecting a dissertation adviser can be accomplished in a number of ways. The importance, however, of this process should not be understated. This relationship between adviser and advisee often can be the difference between completing or not completing the dissertation. This research study looked at the selection process of a dissertation adviser from both a theoretical as well as practical perspective in a fast-track three-year doctoral leadership program at a medium size university in the United States.The methodological approach utilized a single focus group along with follow-up discussion with doctoral students. Recommendations are offered as to ways of addressing the problem or disconnect in the adviser selection process.

The subject of selection of an adviser in a Ph.D. program has been examined as part of a variety of studies looking at doctoral education, with some of those studies concentrating on the role of the adviser (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Gardner, 2013; Jaeger, Sandman, & Kim, 2011; Joyce, 2016; Kim, 2007; Noy & Ray, 2012; Schlosser & Kahn, 2007­­) and other studies focusing on faculty members serving as mentors to doctoral students (Gearity &Mertz, 2012; Holley & Caldwell, 2012; Linden, Ohlin, & Brodin, 2013) and still other researchers looking to determine whether the title of adviser or mentor even matters when faculty support doctoral students (Brabazon, 2016; Titus & Ballou, 2011).

The focus of this paper is on examining what methods are used in the selection process and what might be the preferred method of choice for aspiring dissertation candidates. Hence, the research questions that this research seeks to answer are: Given that doctoral students in a fast-track, executive program in educational leadership are asked to select an adviser at the beginning of their second year of formal study, is this selection process flawed since most of these doctoral students appear to rely more on familiarity with members the doctoral faculty rather than more salient qualities of members the doctoral faculty? Also, can a framework be developed, supported by the literature, which can assist institutional development of a framework to assist in the successful pairing of doctoral students with supportive doctoral faculty? The importance of helping institutions refine this process is important, yet too often unrecognized when “fewer than half of faculty members report having policies or guides on advising doctoral students with only a quarter reporting having received any training in how to be an adviser” (Titus and Ballou, 2013, p. 1274).

Although on the surface the process of pairing doctoral students with faculty may seem both simple and somewhat harmless, it can be a very difficult and challenging experience for a doctoral student. As noted by Sangganjanavanich and Magnuson (2009), “just as doctoral students often learn how to write a dissertation by writing a dissertation, they may learn about the long-term implications of adviser selection during or after the selection process” (p. 195). Both doctoral faculty and doctoral students are asked to develop a unique relationship based on what could be very different styles of managing research, providing feedback and communication, and developing trust and understanding.

Other considerations might be faculty research agendas, background of experience, and assigned adviser roles. The increase in international doctoral students and the needs those students have adds additional variables, further complicating the process (Kim, 2016; Knox, Sokol, Schlosser, Inman, Nilsson, & Wang, 2013). This topic becomes increasingly important as new fast-track, three year executive programs continue to grow in higher education and as the traditional doctoral graduate student who teaches classes and is vested with the doctoral faculty has been replaced by the part-time doctoral student who holds a full-time position in the workforce. Part-time doctoral students have time and access-to-faculty restrictions that traditional doctoral programs of the past did not have, at least not to the extent of the fast-track doctoral programs of today (Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013).

One of the authors of this study directs an executive-type fast-track doctoral program in management and leadership and has done so for over ten years. As part of this study the researchers will include some of the problems and concerns he and candidates in the program have experienced related to the selection process of advisers. Too often the adviser selection process becomes a quick and arbitrary way of assigning advisers while meeting contractual teaching assignments. Based on interviews with many of the candidates and a gap in the related literature, it is the intent of this study to illuminate this issue for those interested in the adviser selection process. Recommendations will be made based on the data that might offer ways to improve the adviser selection process.

The importance of the dissertation adviser relationship is clearly recognized in the literature and can be summarized by Barbazon’s (2016) statement, “the most important decision a doctoral candidate makes is the selection of supervisor, because they can enable, assist, warn, frame and improve the topic” (p. 16). When discussing the development of doctoral students in Educational Administration programs, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, and Piert (2013) go beyond the students effort during doctoral work as a determining factor of student success, concluding that “competence, confidence and capacity to understand and utilize research depended on the educational administration students’ focus on building technical skills as well as program and faculty support structures” (p.270).

Holley and Caldwell (2012) further advance the importance of the institution’s responsibility in the success of doctoral student support adding, “the design and implementation of a successful doctoral mentoring program is dependent on several factors including … the administrative willingness to coordinate the initiative” (p.253). Stark (2013) held with the notion there is not a right or wrong way to select a dissertation adviser. At her institution, an initial interim adviser was in place until a permanent adviser would be named. This approach would seem to address the time element for selection, but really lacked the more practical needs of fast-track doctoral programs.

To illustrate, many fast-track executive-type doctoral programs have a pre-designed three-year window for completion with most frontloading research methods during year one followed by selection of the adviser and the start of the dissertation in the beginning of year two (Hineman & Semich, 2013, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013). Given the emphasis on content as a part of methods in year one, an initial interim adviser would not be feasible. Holman (2015) argued that funding as a part of research should be a consideration. However, funding is more associated with doctoral research that is more directed to traditional programs that are more longitudinal in nature.

One thing is certain, students must be a part of this selection process of their adviser (Phillips & Pugh, 2000, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013). Further, it is important that students have a working knowledge of the faculty who are available to oversee the dissertation and that those who are advising dissertations have both the time and expertise to work with a doctoral candidate. Herzig (2002) stated that the doctoral student relationships with their advisers are critical to student success and from the negative side, can be detrimental in terms of attrition. Stark (2013) focused more on the adviser-advisee relationship in terms of common interest with emphasis on serving as a professional future reference. Hence, this relationship is based on mutual interests relative to topic and method of research. Bieber and Worley (2006, 2010) looked more toward an apprenticeship model where the doctoral student served more in an apprentice role with a teaching mentor.

Collins, Holum, and Brown (1991) proposed the idea of a between student and adviser/mentor having four main aspects; , , , and . Content is what must be known to be able to do the work, methods are the ways students develop their craft, sequencing is the order of the coursework, and sociology relate to the social aspects of the learning environment. Cognitive apprenticeship is an approach that emphasizes the mentoring process in a master/apprentice relationship. Ghefali (2003) expanded the Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model to include six specific areas; , , , , , and n. Taking into consideration this expansion of the idea of cognitive apprenticeship might serve well as a means of connecting an experienced faculty member with an apprentice doctoral student (Hineman & Semich, 2013).

Scaffolding the various stages of the dissertation process and coaching students to adhere to rigorous research methods and modeling technical aspects of academic writing are components of an expanded perception of the cognitive apprentice model applied to doctoral education, as well as emphasizing the need for articulation and reflection during the dissertation process. This expansion of the cognitive apprenticeship model also helps to support the notion that additional mentors can also play a role in the form of committee members’ contribution to the dissertation process. In short, the dissertation is as much a learning process as it is a product which supports the notion that finding an effective faculty mentor/teacher may be important in selecting an adviser. As Barbazon (2016) states, “in many ways, doctoral education is configured through a series of intimate, intense series of tutorials that runs over three years” (p. 17).

Establishing a strong relationship between adviser and advisee is paramount in making the dissertation process work in any doctoral program. Zhao, Golde, and McKormick (2007) examined ways in which this strong relationship might occur. The dynamics of this relationship inevitably seemed to point toward the student selection process. In this case, doctoral students assume the responsibility for selecting an adviser who they feel most comfortable. Sounds logical, however, it may be that the choice is rooted in popularity among doctoral faculty or the actions of some faculty to actively recruit prospective doctoral students since many schools provide a stipend or course reduction for those faculty who supervise a doctoral dissertation. Valian (1999) suggested that if there is not a systematic process in place for adviser selection, this may lead to a number of issues. Bias among faculty, frustration among doctoral candidates, and scheduling irregularities in terms of course load are just a few that may surface.

It is also important to place the importance of the relationship between adviser and advisee is a unique, complex social system that is subject to constant change. As such, this research has identified actor-network theory devised by Michel Callon in 1982 as a means to further understand the complexity of the relationship. Actor-network theory is also a possible descriptive way of telling how “relations assemble or don’t” (Law, 2007, p. 2). In simple terms, the Actor-network theory looks at relations between individuals (actors) and things (dissertation) in a complex network.

An adviser or committee members who experienced frustration or issues within their own personal dissertation team network may manifest similar actions in other advisee-adviser relationships. This adviser-advisee relationship can also be subject to change through the number of actors who may serve as committee members and are evaluating student work, the impact of policy and standards as a part of the program, the possible travel limitations for meeting and library time, lack of knowledge of various technological tools and software that may be beneficial, and the competitive interactions between cohort members who are completing at various stages of their dissertation. In addition, in the fast-track, executive-type doctoral programs, most, if not all students, are working full-time jobs and many have family responsibilities. Thus, work and personal issues can interfere with how relationships can be subject to change in the program.

In summation, cognitive apprenticeship as a theory of advisee mentoring and Actor-network theory as a way of examining how relationships assemble or don’t assemble with advisers and advisees in the dissertation process are some of the theoretical underpinnings to a better understanding of the selection of a dissertation adviser. Much of the limited research supports student selection although some programs support administrative selection. Focus on approaches for adviser selection also varies and, in some cases, seem somewhat ambiguous.

This paper examines the selection process through two channels: the review of the rather limited amount of related literature, and through the lens of doctoral students directly involved in the dissertation adviser process. The various methods of adviser selection from the literature review show a convoluted array of choices that are employed by doctoral students. In short, the research supports the fact that the relationship between adviser and advisee is important and should be the choice of the student. However, there is little agreement primarily because most of the past research does not draw a distinction between a traditional doctoral program and a fast-track, executive type program.

Early discussions with a member of the research team who directs a fast-track doctoral leadership program made it apparent to the research team that most of the issues that surfaced during the second and third years of that program were somehow related to the adviser/student relationship. Therefore, this research study followed a qualitative approach using a preliminary focus group discussion focusing on adviser selection for the first year of the program and follow-up interview discussions with individual cohort members after the second year of the program. The intent was to ascertain how students selected an adviser and their reflections regarding the selection process. Denzin and Lincoln (2013) identify present day and future qualitative methodology use as more connected to the evidence-based social movement in the United States. In this case, doctoral students were queried as what qualities they were seeking in an adviser and later reflecting on whether their choice of advisers met their expectations. This was a form of narrative voice since it represented the thoughts and feelings of these doctoral participants. The interview protocol consisted of the following questions:

There were 63 doctoral student participants from three cohorts who participated in this research study. The group was comprised of a diverse group of students that included corporate trainers, teachers, principals, health professionals, and military personnel seeking the leadership terminal degree. Different ages, gender, race/ethnicity were also represented in these doctoral cohorts which has been typical in this program and other similar executive-type doctoral programs. Data were gathered during the monthly Saturday dissertation seminars, which serve as monthly support sessions for the dissertation process and for debriefing students in the program.

All second year students were given faculty profile sheets for the dissertation chair selection process in order to consider the following: courses taught by faculty member, number of dissertation advisements, research interests of faculty, faculty preference of methodology, special interests, and educational background (includes major, minor, and dissertation title). Three weeks after distribution of the forms, second year doctoral students and faculty have an opportunity to meet during an evening buffet dinner to discuss dissertation topics, research agendas, and other relevant information. Students then have the opportunity to meet with faculty or to correspond via e-mail or phone as a follow-up. A week later these doctoral students submit their choices for adviser and provide a prioritized list of three names which gives some degree of administrative latitude in the assignment area. If several students selected the same faculty member, there was some flexibility to assign faculty as committee members. Individual meetings with each doctoral candidate follow and adviser selection is discussed. The director of the program attempted to meet the request of each doctoral candidate and query each of them as to why they chose that faculty member as his or her adviser. In some cases students may be asked to take their second or third choice in this process to meet the faculty load requirements mentioned earlier.

During the second year and third year, there were monthly individual student conferences focused on student progress relative to the dissertation and the adviser/committee relationship. Students had the opportunity to reflect and share information from an individual perspective. It is from these meetings that complaints may surface about adviser communication.

The results of the student selection process with the 63 students were compiled as the final cohort completed all of the requirements for graduation. These recorded notes on all the preliminary group sessions were reviewed as well as the adviser selection sheets for three cohorts. Follow-up interviews were conducted with students during the next two years of formal study. This section will summarize the data from this process and report in a chronological listing categorized in three phases. The first session was the initial group (large focus group); the next involved two student conferences, and finally in the last year there were additional student conferences.

The initial phase of interviews started with each cohort at the end of the first year of coursework. This first year coursework was comprised mainly of research courses, a technology course, and a curriculum course. By frontloading the research courses, students are better prepared to understand and apply research methods. In the large group seminar, procedures were outlined for all candidates. Students were provided with information about what qualities (faculty research agendas, positive working relationships, mentoring styles, areas of expertise, time factors, and others) are important considerations. The question as to what were student interests, concerns, and expectations for an adviser followed. The responses fell into three distinct categories as shown below.

This initial phase obviously revealed a stronger emphasis on familiarity among faculty. To further clarify this point, the faculty chosen were those that taught mainly the research methods courses during the first year. Relationships developed among the faculty as did preferences toward methodological choices for the dissertation. The area from these cohorts was the research background and publications of the faculty. Since this Instructional Management/Leadership Ph.D. program serves educators, administrators, health professionals, military, corporate trainers, etc., an administrator would select a faculty member with an administrative background, or a health professional would select a faculty member with a background in the health profession. The last category was a candidate talking to other prior cohort members relative to selecting an adviser. This represented a lesser number, but was also different from the other two categories since it relied primarily on the perception of other people in the selection process. There were a limited number of students in each cohort who chose their adviser after interacting at the evening buffet dinner with doctoral teaching faculty and students, as depicted in the category of Other . Mainly, the discussion at the dinner with doctoral faculty focused on the dissertation process and the work with the adviser. This individual meeting provided an opportunity for each cohort member to express his/her progress in the program. It was stated by the director of the program that in his experience, coursework is seldom the problem of students having trouble in the program. It is usually an issue with the capstone project, the dissertation, or the dissertation process. It is worth noting the connection the connection here to a finding by Knox, Burkard, Janecek, Pruitt, Fuller, and Hill (2011):

We cannot assert causality in either direction (effect of relationship on dissertation; effect of dissertation on relationship) but also cannot ignore the pattern: positive dissertation experiences were characterized by good relationships between adviser and student; problematic dissertations were often characterized by poor relationships. (p. 65)

By the conclusion of the second year of formal study, cohort members had two full semesters to work with their dissertation adviser. Hence, the researchers looked at the follow-up with these same cohorts but conducted, as previously noted, individual meetings with cohort members. The objective was to ascertain if the students were making progress in the dissertation process with their advisers. In this IML Ph.D. program, during the Fall of the 2 nd year, each semester correlates with the chapters of the dissertation which serves as a timeline. For instance, the Fall semester would correlate with Chapter 1 (Introduction) of the dissertation. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) would correlate with Spring, 2 nd year, then Summer of the 3 rd year would correlate with Chapter 3 (Methodology). Chapter 4 (Results) would be in the Fall of the 3 rd year while Chapter 5 (Findings and Conclusions) would be in the Spring of the 3 rd year in the program. It should be noted that this represents a completion schedule that is not representative of all candidates in the program.

In the discussions with Cohort 8A/8B, the group who graduated in May of 2015, there was a common thread among the group. Even though over 40% had earlier comments in year two and year three about their work and relationships with their advisers, any concerns or issues were resolved when these students completed the dissertation enabling them to graduate. Almost 100% of the students recognized their adviser in the Acknowledgement page of the dissertation. So, any ill will or criticism that may have existed earlier in the relationship, dissipated when the students graduated. All the graduates felt that this was a learning experience and that they understood more about themselves and the process in general from this experience. In short, the importance of completion and subsequent graduation would overshadow any negative feelings between the student and adviser. This is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Cohort 8A/8B

In Cohort 9, the group had completed their second year with one year into the dissertation process. Students in this cohort were at various stages of their dissertation. Using the same meeting procedures as with Cohorts 8A and 8B, a researcher met with members of Cohort 9. The responses from this cohort were as follows in Table 3:

Table 3: Cohort 9

Once again, students voiced similar comments on the role of their advisers. Although less negative comments were made by this cohort, the nature of these comments would indicate much different sentiments from the beginning of year 2 until the end of the same year, at least by 30% of the cohort. As noted earlier, issues such as meeting time, expected quick responses on submitted papers, and perceived relationship problems between adviser and candidate were not considered by students in cohorts 8A/8B and cohort 9.

Finally, Cohort 10 selected advisers during the summer of 2015 for the IML Ph.D. program. As noted there are a total of 18 students in this cohort. The same process of providing biographical information on faculty followed by a meet and greet buffet dinner was standard introductory procedure. Given the time frame of less than two months, these students responded in a typical manner by choosing faculty they were familiar with from their coursework or faculty who most impressed them at the dinner buffet. After meeting with each candidate to give faculty adviser/committee assignments, this group, as others, was pleased to hear that they were able to secure the adviser of choice. They, like others, were delighted to begin the process of starting the dissertation.

Discussion, Findings, and Conclusions

From a review of the three cohorts, it was clear that all three groups similar to earlier cohorts in this program, based their choice of adviser primarily on familiarity and first meeting impressions from the buffet dinner event. Familiarity could be explained in terms of selecting a faculty member based on past coursework with that faculty member. In many cases, it was first year doctoral faculty or, in some cases, doctoral faculty who had previously had a student in an undergraduate or graduate course. In should be noted that a percentage of our students pursue the doctoral degree after completing the Instructional Management/Leadership master’s degree at our university. A few students based decisions on the background of the faculty member and that person’s research area while some talked with previous cohort members. Despite preliminary discussions with the cohort in term of the process and shared past commentary from other students in the program, these students were still not focused on what might be considered the most important attributes and qualities of an adviser in the dissertation relationship. In traditional programs, students many times have the opportunity to work more closely with faculty or, at least, have the opportunity to have completed coursework with the majority of doctoral faculty who would serve as advisers.

While the doctoral faculty have a wide range of backgrounds in leadership including military, government, education, and health care, there are limitations on the director that relate directly to the faculty contract. By our contract, each faculty member should be assigned at least one doctoral student and subsequently, would serve on two committees. There is flexibility relative to faculty having more than one student. In the past the mix of students noted earlier in the description of makeup and background of the program participants provided a level of variety for student choice. To illustrate, a public school principal would probably lean toward working with a faculty member who was a former superintendent of schools. We have others who been a part of the corporate, military, higher education, or health professions. However, in some cases, if there was imbalance or over representation in one area (professional background), this might also hamper the ability of students to choose an adviser in their specific field.

The major finding of this brief study was that there was a disconnect between the entry selection criteria, which was somewhat superficial, and the reality of what many of the students really needed in an adviser. Although personal characteristics may be initially important, the complexity of the dissertation adviser role cannot be minimized. During the writing of the dissertation, some students may need more prodding than others. Some may need more encouragement. This relationship should be shaped into a mentoring role as in cognitive apprenticeship where learning occurs through guided experience. Since all faculty advisers completed a dissertation, this can be both a discovery process and a teaching process as in the Actor-Network theory which adviser and advisee are networked to the degree that both adviser and advisee learn from one another. Advisers not only learn new material but also gain new ideas and insights into their own future research agenda. Other criteria described in the literature such as common research interests, time factors, dissertation experience, etc. all have relevance that certainly go beyond familiarity, preliminary first time meetings, and the experience of others. This study’s researchers suggest that the title of adviser-mentor be applied to faculty supporting the work of doctoral students in the program, so as to emphasize the role of faculty in the success of doctoral students.

Also, based on the responses from candidates and the related research, this study’s researchers propose the following specific recommendations as a way of addressing the adviser selection process. These recommendations are aligned with Ghefali’s (2003) expansion of Collins, Holum, and Brown’s (1991) Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model:

These recommendations are ways of defining a more substantive and research-supported approach of selecting an adviser. The alignment of this study’s recommendations to Ghefali’s (2003) expanded Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model provides adviser-mentors with a rationale for implementing those recommendations and perhaps a framework that can be generalized to similar programs.

The goal is to develop a strong, nurturing relationship between the adviser-mentor and the student. It goes beyond the simple - pick who you know or pick who impresses you approach that is too often chosen by students. It enables doctoral students to engage more frequently and in a more professional, academic relationship with a possible adviser-mentor. Better informing students early on in the process is obviously a preferred first step. These doctoral students will be able to make more informed decisions relative to choice. Faculty, on the other hand, will also have a better opportunity to connect with these doctoral students, especially those faculty who traditional taught courses in the second and third years of the program.

As Joyce (2016) creatively suggests to those wrestling with the improvement of doctoral programs and dissertation advising, “create a space where both parties can exist together as actors who jointly create knowledge for their profession” (p. 412). If we can follow that simple suggestion, along with the recommendations of this brief study, then the choice of door number one, two, or three may be much easier with greater residual benefit, especially for doctoral students participating in today’s fast-track doctoral programs.

Adams, Howard G. and Ram, Ashwin (1992). How to choose an adviser . April, 13, 2015. Retrieved online at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/faculty/ashwin/wisdom/how-to-chose-an-adviser.html

Barnes, B. & Austin, A. (2009). The role of doctoral advisers: A look at advising from the adviser’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33 , 297-315.

Bieber, J.P. and Worley, L.K. (2006, 2010). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate students’ perspectives . The Journal of Higher Education , 77 (6) 1009-1035.

Brabazon, T. (2016). Winter is coming: Doctoral supervision in the neoliberal university. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 3 (1).

Callon, M. (1982) Action Network Theory . http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm- binaries/5222_Ritzer__Entries_beginning_with_A__[1].pdf

Collins, A., Holum, A., and Brown, J.S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible . May 15, 2015. Article retrieved online.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2013). The landscape of qualitative research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

Gardner, S. (2013). The challenges of first-generation doctoral students. New Directions for Higher Education , 162 , 43-54.  

Gearity, B. & Mertz, N. (2012). From “bitch” to “mentor”: A doctoral student’s story of self-change and mentoring. The Qualitative Report , 17 , 1-27.

Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and the contextualization of learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online Learning , 4 .

Halse, C. & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79-92.

Herzig, A. H.(2002). Where have all the students gone? Participation of doctoral students in authentic activity as a necessary condition for persistence toward the Ph.D. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 50: 177-212.

Hineman, J. and Semich, G. (2013). Cognitive apprenticeship and the support of students in non-traiditional cohort-based doctoral education programs. Proceedings for the Society for Information Technology in Education Conference , March 25-29, 2013, New Orleans, LA.

Holley, K. & Caldwell, M. (2012). The challenges of designing and implementing a doctoral student mentoring program. Innovative Higher Education, 37 , 243-253.

Holman, Zachary C. (2002). Selecting the right Ph.D. adviser: A guide . Article retrieved online August 5, 2015. http://faculty.engineering.asu.edu/holman/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Choosing-an-adviser-v2-ZH.pdf

Jaeger, A., Sandman, L. & Kim, J. (2011). Advising graduate students doing community-engaged dissertation research: The adviser-advisee relationship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15 (4), 5-25.

Joyce, P. (2016). “The thing itself”: Using literary criticism techniques in teaching qualitative research through dissertation advising. Qualitative Social Work, 15 (3), 407-413.

Killeya, Mathew (2008). The Ph.D. journey: How to choose a good supervisor. New Scientist . Issue 2644, February 2008.

Kim, Y. (2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising. Journal of Research in International Education, 6 (2), 171-193.

Knox, S., Burkard, A., Janecek, J., Pruitt, N., Fuller, S. & Hill, C. (2011). Positive and problematic dissertation experiences: The faculty perspective. Counseling in Psychology Quarterly, 24 (1), 55-69.

Knox, S., Sokol, J., Schlosser, L., Inman, A., Nilsson, J. & Wang, Y. (2013). International advisees’ perspectives in the advising relationship in counseling psychology doctoral programs. International Perspectives in Psychology; Research, Practice, Consultation, 2 (1), 45-61

Law, J. (2007). Actor neywork theory and material semiotics . Article retrieved online April 27, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf

Linden, J., Ohlin, M. & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in Ph.D. education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 639-662.

Martinsuo, M. and Turkulainen, V. (2011). Personal commitment, support and progress in doctoral studies, Studies in Higher Education , 36 (1), 103-120.

Murakami-Ramhalo, E., Militello, M. & Piert, J. (2013). A view form within: How doctoral students in educational administration develop research knowledge and identity. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (2), 256-271.

Noy, S. & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisers: is there systematic disadavantage to mentorship? The Journal of Higher Education, 83 (6), 876-914.

Patterson, D. (2010). Your students are your legacy. Communication of the ACM, 52 (3), 30-33.

Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2000). How to get a Ph.D. : A handbook for students and their supervisors (3 rd ed.), Buckingham, UK; Open University Press.

Sangganjanavanich, V. & Magnuson, S. (2009). Counselor Education & Supervision, 48 , 194-203.

Schlosser, L. & Kahn, J. (2007). Dyadic perspectives on adviser-advisee relationships in counseling psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 211-217.

Stark, Miriam (2013). Choosing a dissertation or thesis/adviser mentor . Article retrieved online August 3, 2015. http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/graduate/agsa/choosing-adviser-mentor.pdf

Titus, S. & Ballou, J. (2011). Faculty members’ perceptions of advising versus mentoring: Does the name matter? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1267-1281.

Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zhao, C., Golde, C., & McKormick, A. (2007) More than a signature How adviser choice and adviser behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction . Journal of Further and Higher Education , 31 (3), 263-281.

Save Citation »    (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager)

Hineman, J. M., & Semich, G. (2017). "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal , 9 (03). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal 9.03 (2017). < http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588 >

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal 9 (03), http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

HINEMAN, J. M., & SEMICH, G. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal [Online], 9. Available: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

John M. Hineman graduated in 2011 with a PhD in Education from Robert Morris University .

George Semich , Ed.D., is the Director of the IML PhD Program at Robert Morris University .

From the Inquiries Journal Blog

Related reading, monthly newsletter signup.

The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog.

Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal

Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.

Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal 's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit

Latest in Education

What are you looking for, from our blog.

Inquiries Journal

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Finish Your Dissertation, Fast

Stop going in circles trying to figure it all out on your own. Get hands-on help from a certified coach, today.

Clients Passed

Client Pass Rate

Trustpilot Score

Facebook Rating

How 1:1 Coaching Works

Our private coaching service gets you across the finish line as quickly as ethically possible.

Step 1: Initial Chat

We’ll have a free, no-obligation consultation to understand your unique situation and needs.

Step 2: Engage

Your dedicated coach will support you through every stage and help you fast-track the process.

Step 3: Finish

Submit your project with confidence and get your life back – or jump into the next degree! 

Why Grad Coach?

It's all about you

We take the time to understand your unique challenges and work with you to achieve your specific academic goals . Whether you're aiming to earn top marks or just need to cross the finish line, we're here to help.

An insider advantage

Our award-winning Dissertation Coaches all hold doctoral-level degrees and share 100+ years of combined academic experience. Having worked on "the inside", we know exactly what markers want .

Any time, anywhere

Getting help from your dedicated Dissertation Coach is simple. Book a live video /voice call, chat via email or send your document to us for an in-depth review and critique . We're here when you need us. 

A track record you can trust

Over 10 million students have enjoyed our online lessons and courses, while 5000+ students have benefited from 1:1 Private Coaching. The plethora of glowing reviews reflects our commitment.

Chat With A Friendly Coach

Take A Peak Inside…

Here’s a snippet from one of our client sessions (thanks, Michelle!)

What Our Clients Say...

We've worked 1:1 with 5000+ students . Here's what some of them have to say:

David's depth of knowledge in research methodology was truly impressive. He demonstrated a profound understanding of the nuances and complexities of my research area, offering insights that I hadn't even considered. His ability to synthesize information, identify key research gaps, and suggest research topics was truly inspiring. I felt like I had a true expert by my side, guiding me through the complexities of the proposal.

Cyntia Sacani (US)

I had been struggling with the first 3 chapters of my dissertation for over a year. I finally decided to give GradCoach a try and it made a huge difference. Alexandra provided helpful suggestions along with edits that transformed my paper. My advisor was very impressed.

Tracy Shelton (US)

Working with Kerryn has been brilliant. She has guided me through that pesky academic language that makes us all scratch our heads. I can't recommend Grad Coach highly enough; they are very professional, humble, and fun to work with. If like me, you know your subject matter but you're getting lost in the academic language, look no further, give them a go.

Tony Fogarty (UK)

So helpful! Amy assisted me with an outline for my literature review and with organizing the results for my MBA applied research project. Having a road map helped enormously and saved a lot of time. Definitely worth it.

Jennifer Hagedorn (Canada)

Everything about my experience was great, from Dr. Shaeffer’s expertise, to her patience and flexibility. I reached out to GradCoach after receiving a 78 on a midterm paper. Not only did I get a 100 on my final paper in the same class, but I haven’t received a mark less than A+ since. I recommend GradCoach for everyone who needs help with academic research.

Antonia Singleton (Qatar)

I started using Grad Coach for my dissertation and I can honestly say that if it wasn’t for them, I would have really struggled. I would strongly recommend them – worth every penny!

Richard Egenreider (South Africa)

Have A Question?

Here are some of the most popular questions we get asked.

Dissertation Coaching

How does coaching work.

Working with Grad Coach means you get a dedicated, highly-qualified research specialist to help you through any stage of your research.

Whether you just want a little initial guidance to make sure you're headed in the right direction, or you want hands-on, ongoing support throughout your entire research journey, your coach will be there for you whenever you need help.

Your dedicated coach will work with you using three channels: live sessions, content reviews and email support.

Live Coaching Sessions

A live coaching session is a real-time online meeting (audio or video) with your coach. In these sessions, you can discuss anything you need assistance with. For example, you might discuss topic ideas, how to structure your next chapter, how to undertake a specific analysis, etc.

Content Reviews

A content review is an offline review, where you send your document to your coach and they’ll meticulously review it at the scheduled time. They will provide extensive commentary within the document (including what’s wrong, why it’s problematic and how to correct it), and then email it back to you (see an example here ). If you want to have a call in addition to the content review, you can do that too.

Email Support

In addition to these two options, you can also email your coach at any time to ask any questions you have, so you'll never be left feeling unsure.

How is coaching different from a university-allocated supervisor?

There are a few key differences:

On-demand access

A university-allocated supervisor can only spend a limited amount of time with each student and their support is usually limited to a certain amount of time per section of content. Also, support is often limited to one or two formats (e.g., email).

Conversely, we provide unlimited , multi-channel, on-demand support . You can book a live coaching session anytime you need to, get your work reviewed as many times as you like (see an example here ) and drop us an email whenever you have a question or concern.

Plain-language advice

Supervisors often communicate in complex “ivory tower academic-speak” that is difficult to understand and not particularly actionable. Students often struggle to make sense of their supervisor’s advice and feedback, due to this language barrier and experience gap.

Conversely, we provide you with plain language, actionable advice and feedback, with lots of examples and analogies to help you grasp concepts as quickly and easily as possible.

A safe, confidential space

The supervisor-student relationship is a tricky one to navigate, as the supervisor is often the first/primary marker or will be assessing you in some way. This creates an awkward dynamic, where it can feel somewhat risky to ask certain questions or propose ideas.

Conversely, your dedicated coach is your “partner in research” and there are no power dynamics. We create a 100% safe, comfortable space for you to ask questions, learn and grow. No question is a "stupid question".

Combined research expertise

Your supervisor will generally be allocated based on your area of research (your topic), not your methodology. This means that oftentimes (not always) they are not methodology experts and cannot provide the best possible guidance regarding your research design.

Conversely, the Grad Coach team consists of methodology experts across the spectrum of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. While you'll usually only work with one dedicated coach, you'll have access to the combined knowledge pool, which means you'll get the best possible advice.

How is coaching different from editing and proofreading?

Editing and proofreading services focus purely on language, formatting and technical presentation requirements, such as referencing. In other words, the focus is on the language , not the content itself. As a result, a dissertation can be perfectly edited and proofread but still fail, as the content itself is poor.

With coaching, on the other hand, the focus is on content . In other words, we focus on the quality of the research itself. For example, we look at things like:

• Is the research topic well-defined and justified?
• Are the research aims, objectives and research questions well-articulated and aligned?
• Is the literature review comprehensive, integrative and well-structured?
• Is the methodology well-considered and executed?
• Is the analysis sound and do the conclusions make sense?

Simply put – coaching focuses on the things that earn the majority of the marks . Additionally, we do offer a separate editing and proofreading service to polish the document, once the content is finalised.

Is coaching allowed by universities?

Yes . In fact, many universities refer students to us and some institutions even use our content (articles and videos) as part of their curriculum.

We provide dissertation coaching to help you improve the quality of your work. Importantly, all work must be your own – we do not write for you . While there are organisations that will cross this ethical boundary, we refuse to engage in any activity which may be considered as academic misconduct.

WARNING - If you are considering any academic writing service, please be aware that the use of such services can lead to expulsion or even revocation of your degree years after the fact. Many websites offering such services provide extremely low-quality work that is unlikely to pass and some websites are outright scams preying on desperate students.

What's included in the (free) initial consultation?

The purpose of the initial consultation is for us to assess your specific situation , needs and wants, and then e xplain how we can help you .

Please note that the initial consultation is not a coaching session. Naturally, we cannot provide accurate guidance without first having a sound understanding of your project, and we need to charge for such services.

Why should I work with Grad Coach specifically?

There are a few factors that distinguish Grad Coach from the alternatives:

On-demand, online service

Grad Coach was built to give you the help you need, whenever you need it, wherever you are. You can book live audio/video sessions, get your written work reviewed and sent back to you, or just drop your coach an email whenever you have a question. 1-on-1, hands-on help is always just a click away.

Friendly, plain-language coaches

At Grad Coach, our goal is to bring academia "back down to earth". While our coaches have over 100 years of combined experience within academia (including dissertation supervision, marking and lecturing), we always aim to simplify the content as much as possible, using plain language, actionable advice and feedback. You can download a sample content review here to see this in practice.

More than just coaching - a one-stop-shop

In addition to our flagship dissertation coaching service, we also provide a suite of time-saving services such as interview transcription, qualitative coding, survey design, statistical testing, and editing and proofreading. This means you get everything you need under one trusted roof. You can visit the services page to learn more about our full offering.

An accredited, award-winning operation

We take our work seriously, which is why we're accredited by the Tutors' Association UK and subscribe to their extensive code of ethics. We've also won multiple awards, including " Best Dissertation Coaching Service 2021 " (AI International), " Best Dissertation & Thesis Coaching Specialists 2020 " (MEA) and " Top 50 Student Blog " (Feedspot). To date, we've supported over 3000 students with private dissertation coaching and approximately 7 million students with video lessons.

To learn more about Grad Coach and the team behind it, visit the “About Us” page .

Which universities and degrees do you support?

We can provide coaching for a wide range of dissertations, theses and research projects/assignments at Bachelors , Honours , Master's and Doctoral -level degrees, especially (but not limited to) those within the social sciences.

Importantly, our expertise lies in the research process itself , especially research design, methodologies and academic writing – rather than specific research areas/topics (e.g. psychology, management, etc.). In other words, the support we provide is topic-agnostic , which allows us to support students across a very broad range of research topics.

If you’re unsure about whether we’re the right fit, feel free to drop us an email or book a free initial consultation .

Can I get a coach that specialises in psychology/marketing/etc.?

As we mentioned previously, our expertise lies in the research process itself , especially research design, methodologies and academic writing – rather than specific research areas/topics (e.g., psychology, management, etc.).

Simply put, the support we provide is topic-agnostic , which allows us to support students across a very broad range of research topics. That said, if there is a coach on our team that has experience in your area of research, as well as your chosen methodology, we can allocate them to your project (depending on availability).

Can I work with multiple coaches at once?

No. We work on a 1-on-1 basis, where each client has a dedicated coach assigned to their project, to ensure that they receive the highest possible quality of service.

How much does coaching cost?

Since our coaching services are completely custom-tailored for each student, they are billed on a time basis (as opposed to a project basis). This allows you to engage as much or as little as you want, with no long-term commitments or tie-downs.

The hourly rate itself depends on whether you purchase single hours or a discounted package. Please visit the pricing page for more information.

Do you have any testimonials or reviews?

Yes - you can view our Facebook and Trustpilot reviews here . You can also read about our accreditations and awards here .

Will my work be treated confidentially?

Absolutely. Your work will be treated completely confidentially and will not be shared with any third parties, nor published anywhere. We can sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) if you wish. Once you have completed your project, we can delete all content from our servers.

Do you offer other services?

Yes, in addition to dissertation coaching, we provide a suite of time-saving services , including:

• Interview transcription
• Qualitative data coding
• Survey design and hosting
• Statistical testing (SPSS & R)
• Editing and proofreading

If you have any other requirements, feel free to contact us to discuss them.

Can you write (or rewrite) sections for me?

No - all writing must be your own. We can hold your hand throughout the research process, but we cannot write for you as that would constitute academic misconduct.

WARNING - If you are considering any academic writing service, please be aware that the use of such services can lead to expulsion or even revocation of your degree years after the fact. Many websites offering such services provide extremely low-quality work that is unlikely to pass, and some websites are outright scams preying on desperate students.

English is not my first language (ESL student). Can you help me?

Yes , we can. In fact, many of our students are international ESL students. We can assist both with the academic aspects (e.g., coaching) and the English communication aspects (e.g., editing and proofreading).

My work is due in the next few days. Can you help me?

It’s not ideal, but we will do our best to help. Please email us or book an initial consultation as soon as possible.

Can you help me apply for a degree programme?

If your application requires a research topic or proposal (as is common for Master's and PhD applications), we can assist with that aspect of the application. However, if you require admissions-specific advice and guidance, that is not our area of expertise.

Please book a free initial consultation with us to discuss.

I still have questions…

No problem. Feel free to email us or book an initial consultation to discuss.

Kickstart Your Dissertation, Today

Enter your details below, pop us an email, or book an introductory consultation .

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="best dissertation advisor review"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Advising guide for research students.

Success as a graduate student is a shared responsibility between students and faculty. For research students, the relationship with your research advisor, also known as your special committee chair, is extremely important. 

Your responsibility to identify and choose an advisor is one of the most critical tasks you have early in your graduate school career. It’s an opportunity to meet and get to know faculty in your field, to assess your needs for support and supervision, and to collaboratively define your goals, values, and strategic plan for your academic and professional career.

Graduate School Requirement

At Cornell, the faculty advisor in research degree programs is referred to as the special committee chair.

Doctoral students have a special committee of at least three Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and two minor committee members.

Master’s students have a special committee of at least two Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and one minor member.

For both doctoral and master’s degree students, the special committee chair must be a graduate faculty member in the student’s own field.

Definition of an Advisor

Advising  and  mentoring  are often used interchangeably, but understanding the distinctions is important as you choose an advisor.

Advisor Responsibilities

• Guides you in meeting the requirements and expectations for your degree
• Required coursework
• Exams required by the graduate field or the Graduate School
• Research proposal/prospectus
• Research project
• Thesis or dissertation
• Writes informed letters of recommendation for your job applications
• May be a valued colleague or collaborator after you graduate

Mentor Responsibilities

• Provides support and guidance that extends beyond scope of advising
• Demystifies the structure, culture, and unstated expectations of graduate education
• Expands your professional network by introducing you to others
• Provides nominations for awards or other recognitions
• Brings job opportunities to your attention and writes letters of recommendation as you apply for jobs
• Advocates for you within the graduate program and discipline
• May serve as a role model and source of inspiration
• May become a colleague and peer in your discipline and may continue serving a mentoring role

Finding an Advisor

When do i select my first advisor.

At Cornell, the process for obtaining your first advisor varies by field.

Your faculty advisor may be assigned prior to your arrival or you may begin your program with a faculty member you met during the application process.

In some graduate fields, the faculty director of graduate studies (DGS) advises all incoming students. This provides you with time to get to know faculty in your field. By the end of the first semester or year (varying by field), it’s expected that you will have identified your own, long-term advisor. 

In fields where students apply to study with a specific faculty member (rather than do rotations and choose a lab or research group and advisor), you will have chosen an advisor prior to arriving on campus.

You can begin initial conversations about expectations and the advising relationship with your new advisor prior to the start of your program via email.

Start your graduate study and research with clear expectations and thoughtful communication about your plans for an effective advising relationship and success in graduate school.

How do I find an advisor? 

Meet and get to know faculty in your courses and in graduate field seminars and other events.

Talk to advanced students about their experiences and perceptions of the faculty in your programs and ask questions about possible advisors:

• How would you describe their approach to advising?
• What can you tell me about their work style?
• What can you tell me about their research interests?
• How good are their communication skills?
• How clear are their expectations for their graduate students?
• Do they use timeliness in reviewing their students’ writing and their approach to giving feedback?
• How available are they to meet with their graduate students?

After you have gathered information, make an appointment to meet with a potential advisor.

Possible Questions

• Is there a typical timeline you encourage your students to follow in completing their degree programs?
• How often do you meet with your students at different stages of their graduate program? (For example, during coursework, research, and writing stages)
• What are your expectations for students to make conference presentations and submit publications?
• What are your authorship policies? (This is especially relevant in fields where there is collaborative research and publishing involving the student and advisor or a group of students, postdocs, and faculty.)
• How soon should I identify my research project?
• How do you describe the degree of guidance and supervision you provide with regards to your students becoming more independent in their research and scholarship?
• If you are joining a lab or research group: What are the sources of funding for this research? Are there any new or pending research grants?
• How many of your students seek, and secure, external funding? What are your expectations for students to apply for external fellowships?
• Do you have a statement of advising you can share that lists our respective responsibilities and clarifies mutual expectations?
• What’s your advice on how students can manage what they find to be the biggest challenges in their graduate program?

Add other questions to your list based on your own needs and specifics of your program, such as questions about specialized equipment, lab safety, travel to field sites, support and accommodations for special health needs, communication during a faculty member’s sabbatical, funding in fields where there are fewer fellowships and research grants, etc.

Getting Other Mentoring Needs Met

How do i find other mentor(s) .

You may find one faculty member who can serve as both advisor and mentor, but that’s not always the case.

Consider identifying and cultivating additional mentors if that is the case. 

Suggestions on where to look for a mentor:

• The minor members of your special committee
• A faculty member who is not on your committee, and perhaps not even in your graduate field
• Peers and postdoctoral fellows who have knowledge and experience in pertinent issues

No one mentor can meet all your needs.

Good mentors have many emerging scholars they are working with and many other demands on their time, such as teaching, research, and university or professional service. They also may not have all the expertise you need, for example, if you decide to search for jobs in multiple employment sectors.

Develop a broad network of mentors whose expertise varies and who provide different functions based on your changing needs as you progress from new student to independent scholar and researcher.

NCFDD offers a webinar, “ Cultivating Your Network of Mentors, Sponsors, and Collaborators “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Maximizing the Advising Relationship

A successful relationship with your advisor depends on several different factors and varies with needs and working styles of the individuals. Some of these factors are under your control. But some are not. 

Suggestions for Building a Successful Advising Relationship

• Identify what you need from an advisor.
• Communicate clearly and frequently with your advisor to convey your questions, expectations, goals, challenges, and degree progress. Follow up verbal communication and meetings with an email detailing your understanding of what you both agreed to and next steps.
• Update your written academic plan each semester or whenever major changes or adjustments are needed.
• Consider including your plans to write competitive fellowship applications and co-authored grant proposals.
• Consider including  plans for professional development  that support your skill-building objectives and career goals.
• Recognize that you and your advisor have distinct perspectives, backgrounds, and interests. Share yours. Listen to your advisor’s. There is mutual benefit to sharing and learning from this diversity.
• Work with your advisor to define a regular meeting schedule. Prepare and send written materials in advance of each meeting. These could include: your questions, academic and research plan and timeline, and drafts of current writing projects, such as fellowship applications, manuscripts, or thesis/dissertation chapters.
• Be prepared to negotiate, show flexibility, and compromise, as is important for any successful relationship.
• Be as candid as you are comfortable with about your challenges and concerns. Seek guidance about campus and other resources that can help you manage and address any obstacles.
• Reach out to others for advice. Anticipate challenges and obstacles in your graduate degree program and their impact on the advising relationship.

Be proactive in finding resources and gathering information that can help you and your advisor arrive at solutions to any problems and optimize your time together.

Making Use of Meetings

First meetings.

Your first meeting sets the tone for a productive, satisfying, and enduring relationship with your advisor. Your first meeting is an opportunity to discuss expectations and to review a working draft of your academic plan.

Questions to ask about expectations

• What do your most successful students do to complete their degree on time?
• How often do you want us to meet?
• May I send you questions via email, or do you prefer I just come to your office?
• Would you like weekly (biweekly? monthly?) updates on my research progress?
• Do you prefer reviewing the complete draft of a manuscript or may I send you sections for feedback?
• After each meeting, I’ll make a list of what we each agreed to do before our next meeting, to help me keep moving forward with my research. Would you like a copy of that list, too, via email?

Draft Academic Plan

Prepare and bring a draft plan that outlines your “big picture” plans for your coursework, research, and writing, as well as an anticipated graduation date. (Or, email in advance with a message, such as, “I’m looking forward to meeting with you on [date] at [time], [location]. In advance, I’m sending a copy of my academic plan and proposed schedule for our discussion.”)

Contents of the plan

• Include the requirements and deadlines of your degree program. (This is information you should be able to find online or in your program’s graduate student handbook.)
• Include a general timeline indicating when you plan to meet requirements for courses or seminars, any required papers (such as a second-year paper), exams required by the graduate field (such as the Q exam) or by the Graduate School (the A exam and the B exam for research degree students).
• If your graduate field has a specific set of required courses, indicate the semester you may complete each of them, and be open to suggestions from your advisor.
• If your field does not have required courses, have some idea about the courses you are interested in taking and solicit input and suggestions from your faculty advisor.

Subsequent Meetings

Use each subsequent meeting as an opportunity to update your written academic plan and stay on track to complete your required papers and exams, your research proposal or prospectus, and the chapters or articles that comprise your thesis or dissertation.

In later meetings, you can elaborate on your general initial plan:

• Adding specific coursework or seminars
• Add professional development opportunities that interest you (workshops, dissertation writing boot camp, Summer Success Symposium, Colman Leadership Program, etc.)
• Include intentions to participate in external conferences and travel to research sites
• Identify a semester or summer when you would like to complete an internship.

Your written plan is also important to document what your advisor has agreed to, especially when the deadline to submit a manuscript or your thesis is looming and you are awaiting feedback or approval from your advisor. Use a combination of oral and written communications to stay in touch with your advisor, establish common expectations, and mark your progress toward degree completion.

Meeting Frequency

The frequency of meetings between advisors and advisees varies by field and individual. Assess your own needs and understand your advisor’s expectations for frequency of communication (in person and via email).

• Does your advisor like to provide guidance each step of the way so that he or she is aware of the details of everything you are doing?
• Does your advisor want you to launch your work more independently and report back at pre-determined or regular intervals?
• What do you need to be productive? Are you ready to work more independently?

Be proactive in seeking information. Explicitly ask how often your advisor usually meets with new students and how the advisor prefers to be updated on your progress in between meetings. Ask your peers how frequently they meet with their advisor and whether this has changed over time.

There will be disciplinary differences in meeting frequency.

• In humanities and in some social sciences, where library, archive, and field research take students away from campus, maintaining regular communication is essential, including through scheduled meetings, whether in-person or virtual.
• In life sciences and physical sciences and engineering, students often see their advisors daily in the lab or meet as a research group about externally funded projects; these regular check-ins and conversations may replace formal meetings. Make sure that you are also scheduling one-on-one times to talk about your broader goals and academic and career planning progress, however.

Some of your decisions about meeting frequency will be informed by talking to others, but much of it you learn through experience working together with your advisor. Even this will  change over time  as you become a more independent researcher and scholar. Communicate with your advisor regularly about your changing needs and expectations at each stage of your graduate career.

Resolving Conflict

In any relationship, there can be conflict. And, in the advisor-advisee relationship, the power dynamic created by the supervision, evaluation and, in some cases, funding role of your advisor can make conflicts with your advisor seem especially high.

You have options, however, including:

• Code of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty
• Campus Code of Conduct
• Policy on Academic Misconduct
• Research Misconduct
• Graduate School Grievance Policy
• Intellectual Property policies
• Graduate Student Assistantships (Policy 1.3)
• Talking with your advisor to clarify any miscommunication. Cornell University’s Office of the Ombudsman , one of the offices on campus that offers confidentiality, can also assist you by talking through the issue and helping you gather information you need before you speak directly with your advisor.
• Speaking with someone in the Graduate School, either the associate dean for academics ( [email protected] ) for academic issues, or the associate dean for graduate student life ( [email protected] ) for other issues. These deans will listen, offer advice and support, and coach you through any conversation you might want to have with your advisor. Together, you can brainstorm possible solutions and evaluate alternative plans for resolution.
• Touching base with your director of graduate studies (DGS) – if this person is not also your advisor – to talk to about policies and possible solutions to the conflict.
• Soliciting peer advice. Discuss strategies for managing and resolving conflict with your advisor. “Do you have any suggestions for me?” “Have you ever had an issue like this…?” can be effective questions.
• Identifying a new advisor if the conflict can not be resolved. Your DGS can help with this, and the Graduate School (as above) can help as well.

The National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity offers a webinar, “ How to Engage in Healthy Conflict “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Changing Advisors

On occasion, students find that they need or want to change their advisor. An advisor can resign as the student’s special committee chair/faculty advisor. The  Code  of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty describes the rights and responsibilities of students and faculty in each of these situations.

Typical reasons to seek a new advisor include:

• Research interests that veer from the faculty’s expertise or ability to fund a certain project
• Your advisor retires or resigns from the university or takes an extended leave of absence for personal or professional reasons
• Differences in goals, values, or an approach to work or communication style that can’t be resolved
• Serious issues, involving suspected inappropriate behavior, questionable research conduct, or alleged bias, discrimination, or harassment

If you are considering changing advisors:

• Talk to a member of your committee, your director of graduate studies (DGS), or someone in the Graduate School about the proposed change. Some issues, such as funding, require timely attention.
• Identify other faculty members who could serve as your advisor, then meet with one or more of them. The goal is to decide together if you are a good fit with their program. Tips: Discuss or rehearse this conversation with a trusted person, especially if there were issues with your last advisor. Be transparent about these issues and address them going forward with a new advisor. Often prospective advisors are more willing to take on a new graduate student who conveys genuine enthusiasm for their area of study rather than a student who seems to be looking for a way out of a current advising relationship that has gone sour.
• Consider how and when to inform your advisor if you plan to change advisors. Be professional and respectful. Thank your advisor for past support and guidance. Don’t damage, or further damage, the relationship.
• Your DGS, if appropriate
• Office of the University Ombudsman
• Graduate School’s associate dean for graduate student life ( [email protected] )
• Graduate School’s associate dean for academics ( [email protected] )

Forms: 

• Use Student Center if you are changing your advisor before your A exam (for Ph.D. students).
• Use the Post A Committee Change Petition form for changes after the A exam. More information is available on the Graduate School’s Policy pages .

Challenges and Potential Solutions

All good relationships take work. To navigate an advising relationship successfully over time, you should familiarize yourself with some common challenges and possible actions to take.

Challenge: Mismatch in communication needs or style

One example of a communication challenge in an advising relationship is when you want input along the way during a writing project, but you have an advisor who prefers to wait to comment on a complete written draft.

Some possible steps to address this might be to talk to peers about they have handled this in their relationship with their advisor or to explain to your advisor how his or her input at this earlier stage will help speed you along toward having a complete draft for review. It’s important in communicating with your advisor to show that you understand what alternative they are proposing and why (e.g., “I understand that …”).

Challenge: Advisor unavailable or away

Your advisor might be away from campus for a semester or more to conduct research or take a sabbatical leave. Or when a grant proposal deadline or report is looming, your advisor might be less available. Maybe you’ve emailed your advisor several times with no response.

Planning and stating in advance what you need, such as feedback on a manuscript draft or signatures on a fellowship application, can help your advisor anticipate when you will have time-sensitive requests. Making plans in advance to communicate by email or video conference when either of you will be away from campus for a longer period of time is another useful strategy. Your director of graduate studies (DGS) and other faculty who serve as special committee members can also provide advice when your advisor is unavailable.

Challenge: Misaligned expectations

You are ready to submit a manuscript for publication. Your advisor says it needs much more work. Or you begin your job search, applying to liberal arts colleges with very high reputations, or schools in your preferred geographic location, but your advisor insists that you should apply for positions at top research universities.

Discussing your needs and expectations early, and often, in the advising relationship is essential. Get comfortable, and skilled, advocating for yourself with your advisor. Use the annual  Student Progress Review  as an opportunity to communicate your professional interests and goals with your advisor. Use multiple mentors beyond your advisor to get advice and expertise on topics where you need a different perspective or support.

Sometimes challenges can become opportunities for you to develop and refine new skills in communication, negotiation, self-advocacy, and management of conflict, time, and resources. For example, although you might feel abandoned if your advisor is unavailable for a time, even this potentially negative experience could become an opportunity to learn how to advocate for yourself and communicate about your needs and perceived difficulties in the relationship.

Advising Resources

Graduate School deans and directors  are available to answer academic and non-academic questions and provide referrals to useful resources.

Counseling and Psychological Services  (CAPS) staff offer confidential, professional support for students seeking help with stress, anxiety, depression, grief, adjustment challenges, relationship difficulties, questions about identity, and managing existing mental health conditions.

Let’s Talk Drop-in Consultations  are informal, confidential walk-in consultations at various locations around campus.

External Resources

University of Michigan Rackham, How to Get the Mentoring You Want  

Laura Gail Lunsford & Vicki L. Baker, 2016, Great Mentoring in Graduate School: A Quick Start Guide for Protégés

Michigan State University, Guidelines for Graduate Student Advising and Mentoring Relationships  

Michigan State University, Graduate Student Career and Professional Development  

Template for Meeting Notes

Adapted and expanded from Maria Gardiner, Flinders University © Flinders University 2007; used with permission and published in  The Productive Graduate Student Writer  (Allen, 2019). Used here with permission of the author and publisher.  

Use this template for making notes to help you plan for a productive meeting with your advisor, keep track of plans made, and clearly identify next steps that you’ll need to take to follow up on what you discussed.

Mentoring Resources

Graduate school programs focused on mentoring, building mentoring skills for an academic career.

Develop and enhance effective communication and mentorship skills that are broadly transferrable to all careers. Offered by Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate and Professional Students International (GPSI) Peer Mentoring Program

Share lessons learned as a new international student at Cornell as a peer mentor with new international student peer mentees. Offered by the GPSI in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

Graduate Students Mentoring Undergraduates (GSMU)

Share knowledge with and provide support to undergraduate students interested in pursuing further education. Offered in collaboration with the Office of Academic Diversity Initiatives (OADI).

Multicultural Academic Council (MAC) Peer Mentoring Program

Develop strategies to excel academically and personally at Cornell and beyond as a peer mentee or share strategies as a peer mentor. Offered by MAC in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

NextGen Professors Program

Learn from faculty in Power Mentoring Sessions and prepare for careers across institutional types. Offered by the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement and Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate School Programs with a Mentoring Component

Graduate school primer: navigating academia workshop series.

Program for new students on navigating graduate school with sessions on mentoring.

Perspectives: The Complete Graduate Student

Program for continuing students on common issues with some sessions on mentoring.

GPWomeN-PCCW Speaker Series

Series for all students featuring talks by Cornell alumnae with an occasional mentoring focus.

Future Professors Institute

One-day event featuring workshops and guest speakers with occasional mentoring focus.

Intergroup Dialogue Project (IDP)

Peer-led courses blending theory and experiential learning to facilitate meaningful communication with occasional mentoring focus.

Building Allyship Series

Series for the campus community featuring panels designed for productive dialogue with occasional mentoring focus.

Institutional Memberships

Center for the integration of research, teaching, and learning (cirtl) network.

Access to resources on teaching and research mentoring.

Access to career development and mentoring resources.

New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS)

Access to resources, including webinars and articles on mentoring.

Mentoring Programs Across Campus

Give and receive advice as part of a peer mentoring program for all College of Engineering students. Offered by the College of Engineering Office of Inclusive Excellence.

Mi Comunidad/My Community

Peer mentoring program run by graduate and professional students affiliated with the Latin@ Graduate Student Coalition (LGSC) and supported by the Latina/o Studies Program (LSP) and Latina/o/x Student Success Office (LSSO) at Cornell University.

Additional Resources:

• Mentoring and Leadership Tips from Graduate School Programs
• Cornell University Office of Faculty Development and Diversity – Resources for Mentors and Mentees
• Careers Beyond Academia LibGuide
• National Research Mentoring Network

Graduate School Articles on Mentoring:

• Alumna Addresses Importance of Mentoring
• Becoming Better Mentors Through Workshop Series
• August Offers Mentoring Advice
• ‘A Better Chance of Providing Access’: Future Professors Institute Fosters Inclusivity

Virtual Training and External Resources

• How to Get the Mentoring You Want: A Guide for Graduate Students – University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School
• The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine
• Mentor Training: Online Learning Modules – University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute
• Mentor Curricula and Training: Entering Mentoring – Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research

For other resources, view the Advising Guide for Research Students.

If there is anything not included on this list that we should consider, please send the information and a link to [email protected] .

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

fa51e2b1dc8cca8f7467da564e77b5ea

• Make a Gift
• Join Our Email List
• Advising Senior Theses

Every thesis writer and thesis project is unique, and arguably the single most important thing that you can do as a thesis adviser is to get to know your student well and to be supportive and attentive as they work towards their spring deadline. The amount of structure that different concentrations offer their students can also have a significant impact on how you think about your role as an adviser. In some cases you may feel like an extension of the department’s undergraduate office, encouraging your student to follow its well-articulated pathway towards completion and nudging your student to heed (albeit perhaps with some discretion) its recommended proposal or draft deadlines. In other cases you may be the one responsible for translating the concentration’s somewhat vague guidelines into an actionable roadmap of recommended thresholds and dates. It’s well worth establishing a healthy line of communication with the concentration’s undergraduate office (and with anyone else involved in advising your student’s academic work) from the start of your advising relationship.

Regardless of the precise structure and obligations surrounding your position as an adviser, there are a number of things which you can do to help just about any student have a meaningful, and successful, experience with the senior thesis. Here are five key contributions which you can make:

Manage expectations

In an ideal world, every student would enter the thesis process fully prepared for every aspect of scholarly work. They all would know how to ask an analytical question suitable for a 60- or 100-page paper, how to find relevant data, how to draw lucid figures, how to format every footnote or methods section, … . Likewise, we might wish that every thesis topic lent itself equally well to the particular constraints of Harvard’s resources and academic calendar. If only that essential cache of Russian manuscripts existed in a published English translation in Widener! If only this experimental protocol took two weeks rather than four months! In reality, however, every thesis involves some compromise—perhaps significant compromise. One of your most important jobs as a thesis adviser is to roleplay your student’s future audience, and to help your student understand that the most successful theses ask questions that are not only meaningful, but that can be answered at least somewhat plausibly by the set of skills, resources, and time that is available to a Harvard undergraduate. Insofar as a student is determined to tackle a dissertation-sized question, the adviser can at least remind the student that it will be important to frame the results as a “partial” answer or a “contribution towards” an answer in the introduction.

Encourage self-knowledge

As with the previous point about managing expectations, it is important that an adviser be able to remind their student that the senior thesis is not, and will not be, the moment when students magically become “better” people than they already are. Students who have been night owls during their first three years of college are unlikely to transform miraculously into the type of scholars who rise at 6am and write 1000 words before breakfast—no matter how much they yearn to emulate some academic role model. Students who have participated actively in a sport or other extracurricular are unlikely to be able to simply recoup those hours for thesis work—cutting back three hours/week at The Crimson is at least as likely to translate into three more hours spent bantering in the dining hall as it is into three hours spent poring over the administrative structure of the Byzantine Empire. The point is that students can benefit from being reminded that they already know how to do the kind of work expected of them on the thesis, and that it may be counterproductive—if not downright unhealthy—to hold themselves to new or arbitrary standards.

Motivate to start writing early

With relatively few exceptions, most of the writing projects assigned in college are sufficiently modest that students can wait to start writing until they have figured out the full arc of what they want to say and how they want to say it. It’s possible, in other words, to plan and hold the entirety of a five-page essay in one’s head. This is simply not true of a senior thesis. Theses require the author to take a leap of faith—to start writing before the research is done and long before they know exactly what they want to say. Students may be reluctant to do this, fearing that they might “waste” precious time drafting a section of a chapter that ultimately doesn’t fit in the final thesis. You can do your student a world of good by reminding them that there is no such thing as wasted writing. In a project as large as a thesis, writing is not merely about reporting one’s conclusions—it is the process through which students come to figure out what their conclusions might be, and which lines of research they will need to pursue to get there.

Model strategies

While academic research and writing can and should be a creative endeavor, it is also undeniably true that even professional scholars draw upon a relatively constrained set of well-known strategies when framing their work. How many different ways, after all, are there to say that the conventional wisdom on a topic has ignored a certain genre of evidence? Or that two competing schools of thought actually agree more than they disagree? Or that fiddling with one variable has the power to reframe an entire discussion? Students may struggle to see how to plug their research into the existing scholarly conversation around their topic. Showing them models or templates that demystify the ways in which scholars frame their interventions can be enormously powerful.

Keep contact and avoid the "shame spiral"

As noted above, the senior thesis is a long process, and while it’s rarely a good idea for students to change their work habits in an effort to complete it, it is important that they be working early and often. Occasionally students do become overwhelmed by the scope of the project, and begin to feel defeated by the incremental nature of progress they are making. Even a good week of work may yield only a couple of pages of passable writing. Ideally a student feeling overwhelmed would come to their adviser for some help putting things into perspective. But for a student used to having a fair amount of success, the struggles involved in a senior thesis may be disorienting, and they may worry that they are “disappointing” you. For some, this will manifest as a retreat from your deadlines and oversight—even as they outwardly project confidence. They may begin bargaining with themselves in ways that only serve to sink them deeper into a sense of panic or shame. (“I’m long past the deadline for my first ten pages—but if I give my adviser a really brilliant fifteen-page section, he won’t mind! Surely I can turn these four pages into fifteen if I stay up all night!”) One of the best things that you can do as an adviser is keep contact with your student and make sure to remind them that your dynamic is not one of “approval” or “disapproval.” It is important that they maintain a healthy and realistic approach to the incremental process of completing the thesis over several months.

For more information...

The Art of Thesis Writing: A handout for students

Harvard's Academic Resource Center on Senior Theses

Senior Thesis Tutors at the Harvard College Writing Center

• Designing Your Course
• In the Classroom
• Getting Feedback
• Equitable & Inclusive Teaching
• Writing Letters of Recommendation
• Teaching and Your Career
• Teaching Remotely
• Tools and Platforms
• The Science of Learning
• Bok Publications
• Other Resources Around Campus

• Faculty/Staff
• MyMichiganTech
• Safety Data Sheets

How to review a dissertation, thesis, or report

• Tutorials and Help

Beginning in fall 2021, faculty advisors will be asked to review and approve dissertations, theses, and reports in Digital Commons. This will replace the Approval form, and will allow faculty to see the work their student has submitted and be notified when it is published. This process is similar to reviewing a journal article.

When your student submits their work to Digital Commons, the Graduate School will assign the work to the primary advisor to review. This is a manual process that will generally be completed on business days from 8am-5pm. You will receive an email requesting you review the submission – click on the link in your email. The email will be from “Michigan Tech Graduate Publications” and “@dcmtu.bepress.com”.

On the landing page, click “Download PDF” to access the PDF your student submitted. The “Revision History” at the bottom will show you previous versions and native files (if applicable). After looking at the PDF to ensure it meets the committee’s requirements, click on “Submit review.”

10 tips on finding the right dissertation supervisor

Before you start writing your master’s dissertation it is extremely important to find the best possible supervisor to help and guide you through the dissertation writing process. When asking how to write a dissertation, many students forget that all highly graded dissertation examples have in common a strong and productive student-supervisor relationship . There are several important tips to remember when choosing a supervisor.

The right supervisor for your subject

It might sound obvious, but make sure your supervisor is the best possible person to help with your specific dissertation title. It might seem tempting to go for somebody you know already or somebody popular, but finding a dissertation supervisor who is an expert in the specific field you are writing your dissertation on is the most important criteria.

Their intimate knowledge of the topic itself and the academic field surrounding it will be indispensable as they guide you through the dissertation writing process.

A strong working relationship

If you are choosing from supervisors you have worked with before, for your master’s dissertation do choose one with whom you feel you had a strong and productive working relationship . It is best to avoid a supervisor who made you feel nervous or anxious, even if you respect them. When you are writing your dissertation you will need to be able to express your ideas openly and confidently to your supervisor, and to explore your full academic capability without being afraid of making mistakes.

In order to write the best dissertation example you possibly can, you need a supervisor who will allow you to feel supported and free to experiment with new ideas and to push the boundaries of your writing.

Equally, do not be tempted to choose a supervisor who is too laid-back and relaxed, even if you found them particularly easy going. The process of writing your master’s dissertation is intense and pressurised and you will need somebody who will gently push you and keep you motivated if you are going to get it done in time and to the best of your ability.

Good recommendations

The advice of students from previous years is usually invaluable – ask them honestly to share their own experiences with you, they may be able to provide you with excellent inside information about the style and expertise of various dissertation supervisors.

A supervisor with your best interests at heart

Many students tend to approach a dissertation supervisor whose profile is very high within the University or who is an important member of their college or faculty. Remember, although these supervisors may have a great deal of expertise, their schedules may already be tightly packed – make sure you find a supervisor who has enough time to truly provide you with all the support and attention your dissertation deserves.

A slightly less senior supervisor will often have just as much knowledge and skill in your dissertation area of study, but be more motivated to help you towards top dissertation marks to improve their own reputation and academic success as well as yours.

Recent Articles

• What Is an Internship? Everything You Should Know
• How Long Should a Thesis Statement Be?
• How to Write a Character Analysis Essay
• Best Colours for Your PowerPoint Presentation: How to Choose
• How to Write a Nursing Essay
• Top 5 Essential Skills You Should Build As An International Student
• How Professional Editing Services Can Take Your Writing to the Next Level
• How to Write an Effective Essay Outline
• How to Write a Law Essay: A Comprehensive Guide with Examples
• What Are the Limitations of ChatGPT?
• Academic News
• Custom Essays
• Dissertation Writing
• Essay Marking
• Essay Writing
• Essay Writing Companies
• Model Essays
• Model Exam Answers
• Oxbridge Essays Updates
• PhD Writing
• Significant Academics
• Student News
• Study Skills
• University Applications
• University Essays
• University Life
• Writing Tips

Writing Services

• Essay Plans
• Critical Reviews
• Literature Reviews
• Presentations
• Dissertation Title Creation
• Dissertation Proposals
• Dissertation Chapters
• PhD Proposals
• Journal Publication
• CV Writing Service
• Business Proofreading Services

Editing Services

• Proofreading Service
• Editing Service
• Academic Editing Service
• Additional Services
• Marking Services
• Consultation Calls
• Personal Statements
• Tutoring Services

Our Company

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Become a Writer

Terms & Policies

• Fair Use Policy
• Policy for Students in England
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• How it works
• Frequently asked questions
• Essay Writing Services
• Dissertation writing services
• Dissertation chapter
• Primary research
• Law services
• PhD writing services
• Urgent Deadlines Service
• Referral Welcome
• Download PDF Example
• Welcome to Our Blog
• Become a writer
• Fair use policy
• Student Policy England
• Terms and conditions
• Promotion Terms and Conditions
• Privacy policy
• [email protected]
• Contact Form

Payment Methods

Cryptocurrency payments.

Suggested companies

Perfectresearchexpert, the academic papers uk, researchspecialist.co.uk.

Best Dissertation Advisor   Reviews

Visit this website

Company activity See all

Write a review

Reviews 2.8.

Most relevant

It's not even a 1 star

It's not even a 1 star. It -5. Disgusting service build on a lie and extra money sucking in different ways. Liars, miserable people. Don't go here ever! Asking 600 extra in the middle of the journey, which wasn't discussed earlier. Later when you pay them, they saying that account is locked and asking another payment. I hope karma will make the action back towards you. Doesn't matter if you changing your name, what goes around comes around.

Date of experience : 30 August 2023

They refuse to refund me until i delete…

They refuse to refund me until i delete the comment!

Date of experience : 29 March 2022

The worst experience

The worst experience! They don’t proofread what they write, DON’T TRUST THEM

Date of experience : 27 March 2022

Dissertation Editing Services: Everything You Need to Know

If you’re unsure about the quality of your dissertation writing, it’s best to get it reviewed by an expert editor. But you may have lots of questions about how this works. Do you need professional dissertation editing services? What process do they follow? What are the best dissertation proofreading services and how can you choose the right one for yourself?

In this article, we’ve answered all these questions and more. From checks to find out if a company is legit to your expected dissertation editing costs, we’ve covered it all. So without further ado, let’s get into it.  

What Are Dissertation Editing Services?

Dissertation editing services are professional services that help students refine their dissertations before submitting them. Companies that provide these services for students and researchers are also called “dissertation editing services”. Depending on the type of review, they check your thesis for coherence, clarity, syntax, grammar, and word choice.

While understanding professional editing services for dissertations, you may wonder how they work. These companies employ hundreds of academic editors from diverse fields. They use advanced software and a skilled team to assign each dissertation to an expert from the field. This way, you don’t have to waste your time hunting for a dissertation editor and you still get expert feedback.

But are dissertation proofreading and editing services really that important? Could you do without them?

Why Choose Dissertation Editing Services?

You should choose dissertation editing services because your dissertation is the most important academic text you’ll ever work on. It’s your responsibility to ensure that it’s written and formatted as perfectly as possible, and you will lose marks if there are errors in the document!

Plus, your dissertation is your original contribution to your field of study. It has to be the best reflection of your research, or it’ll undermine all your hard work. Due diligence in editing and proofreading your dissertation elevates its quality and conveys your sincerity to your work.

But why not edit your dissertation yourself? Well, there are several disadvantages of self-editing. There are even more advantages of dissertation editing services. So, what do dissertation editing services offer?

Dissertation editing services:

• Catch the most minute errors you’ll likely miss, even with several reviews.
• Improve the clarity and coherence of your writing.
• Ensure accuracy in research methods, argument logic, and use of technical terms.
• Offer expert feedback to improve your document further.
• Elevate the overall impact and quality of your dissertation, helping you score higher.

But how does this process work? A dissertation is a lengthy document, so dissertation proofreading services take a layered approach.

Dissertation Editing Process

The dissertation editing process moves from macro-level edits to micro-level edits. So, document-spanning issues such as coherence and argument clarity are considered first. More specific issues such as grammar and spelling mistakes are fixed at the end to avoid repeated work. 

Depending on the scope of the editing step and the issues looked at, there are four major types of editing. They’re undertaken in a specific order, but various services may offer them in different formats.

Types of Dissertation Editing

The four types of dissertation editing are substantive or developmental editing, line editing, copy editing, and proofreading. Does your dissertation need all four steps? Let’s take a look.

1. Substantive Editing

Substantive editing, also known as content editing or developmental editing, focuses on the content of your dissertation. It improves the structure and flow of the entire document, examining its clarity and coherence. 

A substantive editor:

• Examines the logical development of your argument.
• Ensures that your writing is clear and has a smooth flow.
• Checks the validity of your methodology and data points.
• Removes any ambiguous, redundant, or repetitive sections.
• Ensures that your dissertation aligns with your research objectives.

The substantive editor will leave comments on the document, highlighting problematic areas and suggesting improvements. Since you’re the writer, you decide which comments to work on and which ones to ignore, if any. 

2. Line Editing

Line editing is a line-by-line edit that improves the clarity, flow, and effectiveness of your academic sentences. This is a more stylistic review, focusing on meaning, tone, and word choice than grammar or punctuation. So if you want to ensure that your dissertation is engaging, coherent, and well-written, you need a line editor.

A line editor checks your dissertation for the following:

• Clear expression of the intended meaning
• Word choice and sentence structure
• Smooth flow between sentences and paragraphs
• Consistency in tone and style
• Pacing (sentence length, density of data, etc.)
• Overt language errors (not the main focus)

This step is crucial for ESL students and researchers as well as anyone who’s unsure of their writing abilities. However, providers of dissertation editing services often combine line editing with copy editing, since both these steps address overlapping concerns.

3. Copy Editing

Copy editing for a dissertation is a meticulous process that focuses on the mechanical aspects of writing such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation. In its pure form, copy editing doesn’t pay much attention to stylistic or technical aspects of your writing. So, a copy editor will fix the language errors in a sentence but not inconsistencies in writing style or pacing.

Just because dissertation copy editing is mechanical doesn’t mean it has a narrow scope, though. A copy editor checks not only writing but also graphic elements, formatting style, and referencing. A copy editor undertakes the following tasks:

• Correcting errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and sentence construction.
• Ensuring proper sentence structure with subject-verb agreement.
• Making the text clear and readable.
• Checking the use of technical terms, abbreviations, and acronyms.
• Reviewing the labeling, formatting, relevance, and overall fitness of tables, figures, and images.
• Ensuring that the dissertation follows the prescribed style guidelines (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.).
• Reviewing in-text citations and entries on the reference list; cross-checking them for accuracy and missing details.
• Checking for overall consistency in the document (formatting, word choice, and style).
• Undertaking a basic review of the page layout.

As you can see, a copy editor plays a crucial role in removing several kinds of errors from your dissertation. Compared to this, a line editor’s review seems smaller in scope. So, most dissertation copy editing service providers combine it with line editing. They correct language errors and add comments for stylistic improvements.

4. Proofreading

Dissertation proofreading is the final review that highlights any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formatting. It looks only for surface-level mistakes, such as typographical or language-related errors. So, it’s like copy editing in a sense but with a smaller scope.

Proofreading removes any lingering errors that may distract readers or undermine your hard work. It may seem like a minor step, but it’s an essential quality check and your last defense against any superficial errors. You should proofread your dissertation once all other editing steps are complete to avoid rework.

Proofreading highlights the following errors in your dissertation:

• Spelling mistakes and typos
• Punctuation errors
• Any obvious grammar errors
• Incorrect abbreviations and acronyms
• Errors in labeling or formatting tables and figures
• Referencing errors
• Problems with page formatting (such as improper margins and missing headers)

Since a dissertation proofreader has to catch such minute errors, proofreading is a painstaking and detail-oriented task. Dissertation proofreading services hire trained experts to undertake this step, saving you time and effort.

What Is Dissertation Referencing?

Dissertation referencing is the process of adding references to your dissertation. While researching, you’re bound to use information from a variety of sources, all of which you must credit in your thesis. Whether you follow the MLA style or APA format, you must add and correctly format your in-text citations and reference list entries.

Professional dissertation editors and proofreaders don’t usually undertake this step for you. They may fix one or two incorrect or missing citations, but they don’t write your reference list for you. If any APA dissertation editing services undertake this task, they may charge an additional price.

What Is Dissertation Formatting?

Dissertation formatting is the process of formatting your pages and text according to the style guidelines prescribed by your university. This is usually the MLA format for humanities students, APA format for STEM students, and Chicago style for students of business and history. Incorrect formatting in your dissertation may result in a lower score.

Like referencing, an editor does not undertake dissertation formatting for you unless as a separate task. Some companies do offer dissertation referencing and formatting services in addition to editing and proofreading.

Choosing an Editing Service: What to Look For

Now that you know what dissertation editing is, why it’s important, and how it works, it’s time to find out how to choose an editing service. There are several dissertation review services out there, old and new. Older firms have experience but are often more expensive, while newer companies are more affordable but aren’t well-known. So what signs should you look for?

1. Reviews and Recommendations

Personal recommendations from your peers or seniors are the best method when choosing an editing service. If a company has worked for them, it probably understands the requirements of your subject or university. Some universities also have tie-ups with doctoral dissertation editing services, so you should check if yours has one.

The next step is to check the company’s online reviews. Even a quick look at the reviews will give you a good idea of a company’s strengths and weaknesses. You can then make a more informed choice based on these testimonials.

Shortlist a few editing services from this initial check and refine that list as you find out more about them.

2. A Helpful but Realistic Support Team

All good editing firms have a support team that communicates your requirements to the editing team. The support staff also helps you place your order and guides you through the editing process. Ideally, the person communicating with you should be friendly, confident, and knowledgeable, but not pushy.

If you’re being rushed into placing an order or being offered dubious discounts, you should proceed with caution. So, make sure that the support team knows what they’re doing and can be relied upon. You should also remember to be very clear about your requirements and priorities in your document. This will help them target those issues in your dissertation and you won’t have to ask for any revisions.

3. Transparency and Confidentiality

Dissertation editing services must be transparent about their editing process and measures to ensure document confidentiality. At the end of your first call with the company, you should have clarity about the people who will work on your document and the process they’ll follow. If you can’t be sure of this, ask the support team for clarification. If you don’t get a satisfying answer, it’s probably best to avoid working with that particular service.

Another important aspect of dissertation editing is confidentiality. Almost all editing services have their editors sign NDAs at the time of joining, so you shouldn’t worry about that. One thing to look for, however, is the security measures the company undertakes to protect your document from outside threats. This includes 192-bit or 256-bit encryption methods, which are popularly used by dissertation editing companies.

4. Free Work Sample

Always ask for a sample edit. Editing companies don’t usually offer a sample edit unless you approach them with a major document. Since a dissertation qualifies as such, any firm worth its name should be good to offer you a one-page or 300-word free edit.

This sample edit will tell you a lot about a company’s work ethic, quality of edits, and professionalism. If you’ve shortlisted a few companies, the sample edit is probably the most reliable metric to base your final decision on. However, company policies keep changing and some established firms may have stopped offering sample edits. In this case, you’ll have to decide based on the three factors listed above.

5. A Good Offer

The final consideration is one for your pocket. Getting dissertation editing help can get expensive, and most companies understand the financial constraints on students. So, you’re likely to find big discounts during the dissertation season. If waiting that long isn’t an option for you, don’t hesitate to ask the support staff!

Once you have a quote from a few companies, compare their pros and cons and you’ll be able to choose the best dissertation editing service for you.

Be sure to enquire about the company’s revision policy. If you’re unhappy with the edit, you should be able to receive a partial or full refund. Most editing services offer one or two free revisions, so make sure to use those and get the best version of your document!

Now that we know how to choose a dissertation editing service, what are some well-known firms that fit the bill? Let’s take a look.

The Top Dissertation Editing Services of 2024

Of the many premium dissertation editing services out there, some stand out as the best of the best. In this list, we’ve considered quality of services, pricing, turnaround time, and editorial team. So, here are the best dissertation editing services of 2024:

An established name in academic editing, Scribbr is particularly popular among college students due to its online tools and resources. Their expertise and experience don’t come cheap, but you can rest assured that your dissertation will be well-edited. The best thing is that you can ask them to focus on certain aspects of your document.

If you know that your writing isn’t clear or that your structure needs to be refined, you can opt for the relevant checks. These come with a hike in price but may be helpful for those who have received targeted feedback from professors before. After all, structure, cohesion, and clarity are important factors that affect your overall grade.

Scribbr can return your edited dissertation in 12 hours to 7 days. At around $835 for a 15,000-word dissertation, however, dissertation editing with Scribbr will cost you a pretty penny.

2. Cambridge Proofreading

Cambridge Proofreading has been offering dissertation editing services for over 11 years. They employ more than 300 academic editors, all of whom are native speakers from the US and UK. Their system deletes all documents after 15 days of closing an order, which helps keep your dissertation confidential.

Cambridge Proofreading has expertise in editing dissertations from diverse fields, from astrophysics to philosophy. Recently they’ve also launched a service where they humanize AI-generated text. This is an additional boost for many students, helping them get more work done in less time.

Their dissertation editing process is fairly straightforward, but they stand out in terms of pricing. They charge dissertation editing rates of $28.90 per 1,000 words for a 24-hour delivery and $25.90 per 1,000 words for a 48-hour delivery. In terms of both the cost and turnaround time, this is excellent!

3. Scribendi

Scribendi was established in 1997, making it one of the oldest top dissertation editing companies. They have a separate approach to ESL writers, paying more attention to those documents. With 287 editors working at the firm, they should be able to pair you with an expert from your field.

Sribendi has ISO certification and prioritizes customer satisfaction. They can deliver your document in as little time as four hours! This isn’t feasible for longer documents like dissertations, however. For example, they can deliver a 15,000-word dissertation in 48 hours to 7 days. Their price range for this is $558–$615, putting them on the slightly expensive side of things.

You can use their dissertation editing service to refine not only complete theses but also dissertation and thesis proposals.

4. TrueEditors

Although a relatively newer company, TrueEditors is a robust and affordable dissertation editing service. They have more than 155 academic experts onboard from a diverse range of academic disciplines. The best thing is that their edit also includes dissertation referencing, dissertation formatting, and a plagiarism check!

TrueEditors offers five prices depending on the time duration. They can deliver your edited dissertation in 48 hours, but the price will be higher. If you opt for a delivery time of ten days, however, the price will be much lower.

Aside from editing and proofreading a dissertation, TrueEditors also offers:

• Paraphrasing & Rewriting
• Content Writing
• Translation

These additional services are especially useful to ESL students, who may struggle to express their ideas as eloquently in English.

Enago employs highly qualified editors and proofreaders to work on your dissertation. They offer dissertation editing services in two packages: Thesis Essentials and Thesis Pro. The Thesis Essentials package is limited to grammar, punctuation, academic style,  and expert commentary. You can get thesis formatting, reference formatting, plagiarism check, and one revision with this package as add-ons.

The Thesis Pro package includes everything in Essentials but adds a clarity check, structure check, and advanced commentary. Reference formatting and one revision round are free with this package. If you’re not sure about editing with Enago, you can get their sample edit of 200 words. They only offer this if your dissertation is over 10,000 words.

This overview of the best dissertation editing services must have given you an idea about the process and pricing. But let’s take a closer look at the average dissertation proofreading cost.

How Much Does it Cost to Edit a Dissertation?

It can cost between $400–$850 to edit a dissertation of 15,000 words. However, the cost of dissertation editing varies based on document length, complexity, and your requirements. Undergraduate and master’s dissertations, for instance, will be about 8,000–15,000 words long. PhD dissertations, on the other hand, can reach about 80,000–100,000 words in length, which hikes up the price dramatically.

Similarly, a specialized structure and quality check is likely to add a few hundred dollars to the editing cost. If you want the editing service to handle referencing and formatting on top of that, the cost will increase. The cost of dissertation editing is directly proportional to the amount of work the editor undertakes.

It’s always best to edit and proofread your dissertation a few times yourself and get an initial review from your instructor. You can then look for PhD dissertation editing services based on their feedback. If you know exactly what you need an editor to do, you’ll have to pay only for the essentials.

How Can I Get a Dissertation Editing Quote?

You can get a dissertation editing quote by visiting a company’s website. Most online dissertation editing services have their pricing readily available on their web pages. You can simply type the word count of your dissertation and get a tentative figure. Some companies ask you to upload your dissertation before offering a quote.

If you’d like to know more about a company and their style of work, you can reach out to their support team. These days, most companies have chatbots on their website and you can use them to get in touch with the team. This is a better way to get a quote since you can tell them your requirements and obtain a much better offer.

Can I Get a Discount on Dissertation Editing Services?

Yes, you can definitely get a discount on dissertation editing services. Almost every editing company will offer you a 5% to 10% discount on your first order. Some also have student discounts of up to 15%. Plus, most companies have offers going on throughout the year, such as Black Friday, Holiday Season, and Easter discounts.

If you’ve been working on your dissertation in advance, you’re likely to have a document ready when one of the big offers comes around. If you’re in a time crunch, though, you’ll probably have to make do with a 10% discount.

How Long Does it Take to Proofread a Dissertation?

It may take anywhere from 12 hours to 7 days to proofread a dissertation. If you pay for a premium dissertation editing service, they may even deliver the proofread document in a few hours! But less turnaround time usually means more expensive services. So, the time it takes to proofread a dissertation largely depends on your editing budget!

Do Dissertation Editing Services Offer Error-Free Dissertations?

Yes, dissertation editing services offer error-free dissertations—that’s their purpose! This doesn’t mean that no error can bypass an editor; such a claim would be impossible to live up to. However, dissertation editing and proofreading services undertake several reviews to find and remove as many errors as they can. This, in turn, almost always leaves your document completely error-free!

Is it Safe to Send a Dissertation for Editing Services?

Yes, it’s completely safe to send a dissertation to editing services! It is not only academically ethical but expected that you get your dissertation professionally edited. Editing companies undertake several measures to protect your document, from encryption methods to NDAs. Rest assured, your dissertation is safe in your editors’ hands!

What Types of Documents Can You Use Dissertation Editing Services For?

You can use dissertation editing services for complete theses and dissertations as well as partial drafts. Some services also consider thesis and dissertation proposals under dissertation editing services.

Who Will Be Editing My Dissertation?

An editor with expertise in your subject who matches your editing requirements will edit your dissertation. Since dissertation editing services are legally obligated to protect the identities of their editors, you can’t interact with them firsthand. You can, however, request the support staff to pair you up with a specific type of editor.

-Isabell S.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Best practices for dissertation committees to review chapters?

From talking to colleagues in a variety of fields and different institutions, there seems to be a huge variability in the ways committees handle their responsibilities of reviewing dissertation chapters. I would like to know two things:

• What do you consider the best practices for advisors, other committee members, and candidates in order to move the dissertation writing along efficiently?
• Does the Journal Review policy (specified below) seem reasonable to you?

Journal Review Method In this model, the dissertation advisor treats his or her role as the chair of the candidate's committee as if he or she were the editor of a journal and the dissertation chapters articles submitted for review. The student submits a chapter to the advisor who decides whether it is ready to send for review. If it is, then the advisor sends the chapter to committee members for review. The committee members make a brief (2-4 page) report to the advisor that either: accepts the chapter as is, accepts it pending minor revisions, rejects it pending major revisions, or rejects the chapter entirely. The advisor then makes the final determination as to the status of the chapter. It will be the advisor's responsibility to make sure other committee members submit their reports in a timely fashion. The defense is held when the advisor judges all of the chapters to be "accepted". The primary benefits of this policy are that it creates a clear organizational structure which allows candidates to receive prompt, actionable feedback on their work.

• 1 This looks to me like it would be a good Community Wiki candidate... good, relevant question, but asking for a "best prctices" list. Thoughts? –  eykanal Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 12:40
• My thought is that this isn't a question about the best practices for the site here, but best practices for the departments that the members of this site are members of IRL. My hope is to collect some ideas to suggest to my department about how the process of handling dissertation review might be improved. Hopefully the information would also benefit other graduate students and professors in other departments. I think it deserves an exception. –  user10636 Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 12:42
• I fully believe it would, and I'm not looking to close this question. –  eykanal Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 12:45
• Sorry! I misread your previous as wanting to move it to the meta board rather than wiki. I'm fine with that, but don't know how to move it. (I'm still kind of new here.) –  user10636 Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 12:46
• No problem. Just FYI, the implication of Wiki is that (1) no one gains any reputation from answers on the question and (2) editing requires lower reputation. –  eykanal Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 12:51

2 Answers 2

The policy is straight forward but an open question is what use a complete reject means if the advisor has deemed the chapter as passable. As I see it the advisor has (should have) both the insight into the details of the problem and research as well as general knowledge of academic expectations to deem when a manuscript is in shape for passing on. If a committee member does not think this is right then the question still remains who may be right and who may be wrong? Is the decision by vote in the end since there will likely be three or five persons involved in reading the chapters? In my system it is possible for a student to defend even if the advisor or committee member advise against it. Only fools do but it is possible. It is however, still possible for committee members to disagree but usually when issues arise it is because the student-advisor communication has failed for one or the other reason.

So in my view the "journal review method" is a good start but you also need to consider what will happen if there is disagreement and how to possibly weigh the input. Do all committee members have equal weight in all aspects or are they experts in some parts and therefore carry more weight in those chapters than in others. I think the system requires some tweaking in order to accommodate the clear differences that exist between a journal publications and a thesis ( sensu monograph) where a thesis typically contains larger quantities of more detailed information than would be possible in a published paper.

As a side point, in my system where paper based theses are the norm, it is hard to "reject" a published paper; one can disagree but something that has passed peer review (albeit a poor one) has still passed. The key pint is thus the overall quality of the work and of the emerging scientist behind it. This i snot necessarily covered by the "journal review method" alone.

• I was worried about what to do if there is a failure on the advisor's part, but I don't know how a general policy can fix that. Those sorts of failings are the kinds of things that the chair of the department, or some other departmental officer would have to have responsibility for. –  user10636 Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 12:35
• Maybe the use of the outright rejection would be to try to show the student that the direction of research on this particular point is a complete dead end? I am thinking that the advisor should have the final say, because ultimately the advisor should have the most say about whether the dissertation is passable or not, since he or she is supposed to be the authority on the topic. –  user10636 Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 12:37

Here's what I think from the point of view of mathematics in the US.

For us the usual system is that the advisor is expected to read the thesis carefully, judging its correctness, significance, and novelty, at a level of depth comparable to or higher than would be expected of a journal review (which in mathematics is already pretty deep). The other committee members are expected only to give a more cursory reading, basically to satisfy themselves that the contents of the thesis appear to be mathematics research at an appropriate level.

As such, I think your system would face the following problems:

Expertise. Mathematics as a field is highly specialized, and most of the members of the committee will not be experts in the same area as the candidate. They will not have the necessary background or expertise to carefully read and evaluate the dissertation at the level you propose. For a journal submission, referees can be chosen from anyone in the world, and even so there may only be a few dozen people whom an editor would consider well qualified for that particular topic. The intersection of that pool with the candidate's university is typically just the advisor.

Workload. Even supposing the committee members to have the necessary expertise, what you propose would require a very significant time commitment from them. An average dissertation chapter in mathematics might be 20 or 30 pages of dense computation and logical argument. To read a paper of that length, evaluate its correctness and significance, and produce a 2-4 page referee report, a mathematician might easily spend at least 10-15 hours. Multiply that by 4-6 chapters and that is a lot of work, especially considering that a single person may be on several committees.

• Let's say 4 chapters @ 10hrs each = 40hrs per dissertation. That seems quite reasonable to me in that: (1) the workload is spread out over a year or more in almost all cases, (2) readers on dissertation committees are standardly given course reductions to compensate them for time expended. Different universities calculate the reduction differently, but something like 1/3 of a course seems common. Hence, by serving as a dissertation reader three time one spends between 120 hours. That's less work than teaching a semester long class. Some dissertations will take longer, of course. –  user10636 Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 15:59
• 1 @shane: Whether it's reasonable or not is an argument that one could make. It's certainly much more than they are currently asked to do. If committee members really did get course reductions I might agree with you, but no university I know of actually does that. The advisor might get a course reduction (usually not) but the other committee members never do, in my experience. –  Nate Eldredge Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 16:06
• It might also be a good idea to note that this answer is about the American system. As far as I can tell, the comittee has a different role and composition elsewhere (at least in Denmark). –  Tobias Kildetoft Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 16:20
• @TobiasKildetoft: Thanks, clarified. I see that the asker is in philosophy in the US. –  Nate Eldredge Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 16:21
• 2 @shane: Maybe this is field dependent, but it's certainly not standard in mathematics. –  Nate Eldredge Commented Apr 28, 2014 at 16:41

You must log in to answer this question.

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Is there a way to resist spells or abilities with an AOE coming from my teammates, or exclude certain beings from the effect?
• If the Hom-space of finite length modules is generated by single elements, must the elements be conjugate?
• 2 in 1: Twin Puzzle
• Do the amplitude and frequency of gravitational waves emitted by binary stars change as the stars get closer together?
• Can you give me an example of an implicit use of Godel's Completeness Theorem, say for example in group theory?
• If Starliner returns safely on autopilot, can this still prove that it's safe? Could it be launched back up to the ISS again to complete it's mission?
• Is the spectrum of Hawking radiation identical to that of thermal radiation?
• Has a tire ever exploded inside the Wheel Well?
• Why is the movie titled "Sweet Smell of Success"?
• What unique phenomena would be observed in a system around a hypervelocity star?
• I would like to add 9 months onto a field table that is a date and have it populate with forecast date 9 months later
• Can we make a true \phantom?
• Meaning of サイケデリック in this Non Non Biyori excerpt
• Does Vexing Bauble counter taxed 0 mana spells?
• Can the SLS's mobile launch platform be rotated at the launch complex to keep the rocket on the leeward side of the tower in case of high winds?
• How to disable Google Lens in search when using Google Chrome?
• Is 3 ohm resistance value of a PCB fuse reasonable?
• What is the purpose of these 33-ohm series resistors on the RMII side of the LAN8742A?
• How can I typeset \sim-like arrow?
• Could someone tell me what this part of an A320 is called in English?
• A short story about a boy who was the son of a "normal" woman and a vaguely human denizen of the deep
• What is this device in my ceiling making out of battery chirps?
• How is message waiting conveyed to home POTS phone
• Rings demanding identity in the categorical context

Addressing Reviewer Comments: Refining Your Dissertation

Embrace the Feedback Process

The dissertation journey is a rigorous and demanding one, and as you near the finish line, you encounter a critical phase: addressing reviewer comments. These comments, whether from your dissertation committee or peer reviewers, are a fundamental part of the academic process. They can feel like a mix of praise and criticism, and how you approach them can significantly impact the final quality of your work.

First and foremost, it's essential to embrace the feedback process with an open and growth-oriented mindset. Understand that reviewer comments are not a personal attack on your abilities or the worth of your research. Instead, they are a mechanism designed to elevate your work to the highest academic standards. Here's how to effectively embrace the feedback process:

1. Shift Your Perspective: Instead of viewing reviewer comments as hurdles to overcome, consider them as stepping stones toward improvement. Each comment, no matter how critical, presents an opportunity to refine and strengthen your dissertation.

2. Recognize the Value: Reviewer comments are a form of professional guidance that many researchers pay for through conferences or workshops. In this context, receiving feedback for free is a valuable privilege. It means that experts are invested in your work and are willing to help you succeed.

3. Separate Your Ego: It's natural to feel a personal connection to your dissertation. However, during the feedback process, it's crucial to separate your ego from your work. Remember that constructive criticism is aimed at enhancing the quality of your research, not diminishing your worth.

4. Focus on Improvement: Approach each comment as a specific area for improvement. Consider how addressing this feedback will enhance the overall rigor and credibility of your dissertation. Embracing feedback is an act of dedication to producing your best work.

5. Seek Clarification: If you find a comment unclear or ambiguous, don't hesitate to seek clarification from the reviewer or committee member. A better understanding of their perspective can guide your revisions effectively.

6. Trust the Process: The feedback process is a well-established part of academia. Trust that it has helped countless researchers refine their work and contribute valuable insights to their respective fields. By embracing this process, you align yourself with a tradition of scholarly excellence.

7. Collaborate and Learn: Engaging with feedback is an opportunity to collaborate with experienced scholars. It's also a chance to learn and grow as a researcher. The insights gained from addressing reviewer comments can shape your future work and improve your academic writing skills.

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

Organize and analyze.

Once you've received reviewer comments on your dissertation, the next crucial step is to organize and analyze this feedback. This phase is essential for making sense of the various suggestions, critiques, and recommendations you've received. Here's a detailed look at how to effectively organize and analyze reviewer comments.

1. Create a Systematic Framework: Start by creating a systematic framework for organizing the comments. This framework should help you categorize and prioritize the feedback. Common categories include methodology, literature review, data analysis, and presentation. Having a clear structure will prevent you from feeling overwhelmed by the volume of comments.

2. Catalog Comments: Begin by cataloging all the comments you've received. This involves creating a comprehensive list of each comment, specifying who provided it (e.g., committee member, peer reviewer), and noting the page or section of your dissertation it pertains to. This catalog serves as a reference point for your revisions.

3. Identify Common Themes: As you review the comments, you'll likely notice common themes or recurring issues. These may include suggestions related to clarity, methodology, or the organization of your work. Identifying these overarching themes will help you address multiple comments at once and streamline your revision process.

4. Prioritize Comments: Not all comments are of equal importance, and some may conflict with others. Prioritize comments based on their significance to the overall quality and validity of your dissertation. Focus on addressing comments that have the most substantial impact first.

5. Understand the Reviewer's Perspective: Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer or committee member. Try to understand their perspective and the rationale behind their comments. Consider their expertise and the academic standards they are applying. This empathetic approach can help you appreciate the value of their feedback.

6. Seek Clarification: If a comment is unclear or you require additional information to address it effectively, don't hesitate to seek clarification from the reviewer. Engaging in a dialogue can provide insights into their expectations and help you craft more precise revisions.

7. Align with Your Research Goals: While addressing comments, keep your research goals and objectives in mind. Ensure that revisions align with the core purpose of your dissertation. Avoid making changes that deviate from your research agenda.

8. Maintain Consistency: As you revise your dissertation, aim for consistency in your approach. Ensure that changes made to one section do not create inconsistencies or conflicts with other parts of your work. Maintaining a cohesive narrative is crucial.

9. Document Changes: Keep meticulous records of the revisions you make in response to reviewer comments. Documenting changes ensures transparency and accountability in the revision process. It also helps when you need to justify your decisions during the defense.

10. Stay Organized: Throughout the organization and analysis process, stay organized. Use digital tools, spreadsheets, or project management software to track your progress and manage your revisions efficiently. A well-organized approach saves time and reduces stress.

Organizing and analyzing reviewer comments is a pivotal step in refining your dissertation. It empowers you to make informed decisions about which revisions to prioritize and ensures that your final work aligns with academic standards and your research goals. By systematically addressing feedback, you set the stage for a successful defense and the completion of a high-quality dissertation.

Prioritize Revisions

Once you've organized and analyzed the feedback on your dissertation, the next critical phase is prioritizing revisions. Not all comments carry the same weight, and your time and effort are valuable resources. Prioritizing revisions strategically ensures that you focus on the most significant and impactful changes. Here's how to effectively prioritize revisions based on reviewer comments:

1. Distinguish between Major and Minor Comments: Reviewer comments can vary widely in their impact on your dissertation. Some may point to fundamental flaws in your research, while others may be minor suggestions for improvement. Begin by distinguishing between major and minor comments. Major comments typically relate to issues that affect the overall validity, clarity, or methodology of your work.

2. Address Critical Flaws First: Start by addressing critical flaws or comments that could undermine the integrity of your dissertation. These may include errors in research methodology, gaps in the literature review, or issues with data analysis. By resolving these foundational problems, you ensure the core quality of your work.

3. Focus on Coherence and Flow: After addressing critical flaws, pay attention to comments related to the overall coherence and flow of your dissertation. Reviewers often comment on the logical progression of your arguments, transitions between sections, and the clarity of your writing. Improving these aspects enhances the readability and impact of your work.

4. Address Fundamental Methodological Issues: If reviewer comments highlight methodological concerns, prioritize these revisions. Methodology is the backbone of any research, and addressing issues in this area is essential for the validity of your findings. Ensure that your research design, data collection, and analysis methods meet rigorous standards.

5. Enhance Clarity and Precision: Comments related to clarity, precision, and language should also be prioritized. Clear and concise writing is vital in academic writing. Address suggestions for improving sentence structure, eliminating jargon, and enhancing the readability of your work. Clarity in communication is key to conveying your research effectively.

6. Consider Consistency and Formatting: While formatting and consistency comments may seem minor, they contribute to the overall professionalism of your dissertation. Ensure that your citations, references, headings, and formatting adhere to the required style guide. Consistency in these elements reflects attention to detail.

7. Seek Feedback on Revisions: As you make revisions based on reviewer comments, seek feedback from mentors, advisors, or colleagues. External input can help you validate the effectiveness of your revisions and identify areas that may still require improvement.

8. Keep the Big Picture in Mind: Throughout the prioritization process, keep the big picture of your dissertation in mind. Ensure that revisions align with your research objectives and do not compromise the core message of your work. Balancing the need for changes with the preservation of your research integrity is essential.

9. Maintain a Transparent Record: Document the revisions you make in response to reviewer comments. Maintain a transparent record of changes, including the rationale behind each revision. This documentation not only serves as a reference for your defense but also demonstrates your commitment to addressing feedback.

Engage in Dialogue

As you embark on the journey of refining your dissertation in response to reviewer comments, one of the most effective strategies is to engage in a constructive dialogue. This dialogue extends beyond mere revisions and involves active communication with your dissertation committee, peer reviewers, or advisors. Here's why engaging in dialogue is crucial and how to make the most of it:

1. Clarify Ambiguities: Reviewer comments may occasionally be vague or open to interpretation. Engaging in dialogue allows you to seek clarification on these comments. By understanding the reviewers' perspectives better, you can tailor your revisions more precisely to meet their expectations.

2. Demonstrate Commitment: Actively engaging with reviewer comments demonstrates your commitment to producing high-quality research. It shows that you value the input of experts in your field and are dedicated to addressing their concerns and suggestions.

3. Show Willingness to Collaborate: Engaging in dialogue fosters a sense of collaboration between you and the reviewers. It communicates your openness to working together to improve the dissertation. This collaborative spirit can lead to more productive exchanges and a more supportive review process.

4. Defend Thoughtfully: In some cases, you may disagree with certain comments or suggestions. Engaging in dialogue allows you to defend your choices thoughtfully and academically. Be prepared to provide well-reasoned justifications for your decisions, which can demonstrate your research expertise.

5. Seek Additional Guidance: Beyond clarification, engaging with your dissertation committee or reviewers can be an opportunity to seek additional guidance. You can ask for recommendations on specific literature, methodologies, or approaches to address the comments effectively.

6. Maintain Regular Communication: Keep the lines of communication open and maintain regular contact with your dissertation committee or reviewers. Provide updates on your progress, share draft revisions, and seek feedback at various stages of the revision process. This proactive approach can help prevent surprises during your defense.

7. Manage Expectations: Engaging in dialogue allows you to manage expectations effectively. If there are comments that you cannot address due to limitations or time constraints, communicate this transparently. Managing expectations can lead to more realistic and feasible revisions.

8. Showcase a Growth Mindset: Demonstrating a growth mindset is an essential aspect of engaging in dialogue. Embrace feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement rather than as criticism. This mindset shift can positively influence how reviewers perceive your responsiveness to their comments.

9. Seek Alignment: Ensure that your revisions align with the expectations of your dissertation committee or reviewers. Use the dialogue to confirm that your changes accurately address their concerns and suggestions. Alignment with their expectations contributes to a smoother review process.

10. Leverage Professionalism: Approach all interactions with professionalism and respect. Remember that your reviewers are experts in their fields, and maintaining a respectful and collegial tone in your dialogue is essential.

Engaging in a constructive dialogue with your dissertation committee or reviewers is a valuable component of the revision process. It allows you to clarify comments, demonstrate commitment, and seek collaborative solutions. By maintaining open and respectful communication, you enhance the quality of your dissertation and navigate the review process more effectively.

Revise and Improve

After you've organized, prioritized, and engaged in a constructive dialogue with your dissertation committee or reviewers, the next crucial step is to embark on the revision journey. This phase, characterized by thorough and systematic revisions, is where you transform feedback into tangible improvements. Here's a detailed guide on how to effectively revise and improve your dissertation:

1. Start with the Most Critical Feedback: Begin by addressing the most critical feedback—the comments that go to the heart of your dissertation's quality and validity. This may include revising your research methodology, refining your argument structure, or improving data analysis.

2. Maintain Clarity and Consistency: Pay close attention to comments related to clarity, coherence, and consistency. Ensure that your dissertation flows logically and that there are smooth transitions between sections. Review your writing style to eliminate jargon and ambiguity.

3. Strengthen Your Argument: Evaluate comments that pertain to the strength of your argument. Reviewers often provide insights into areas where your argument may be weak or where additional evidence is needed. Strengthen your claims with robust evidence and persuasive reasoning.

4. Address Methodological Concerns: If there are methodological concerns or suggestions for improvement, implement these changes diligently. Methodology is the backbone of your research, and addressing these comments is crucial for the validity of your findings.

5. Proofread and Edit: Conduct a comprehensive proofreading and editing pass. Eliminate grammatical errors, typos, and punctuation issues. Ensure that your writing is polished and conforms to the required style guide (e.g., APA, MLA).

6. Be Concise and Precise: Review your writing for conciseness and precision. Avoid unnecessary wordiness and ensure that every sentence serves a clear purpose. Precision in language enhances the readability and impact of your dissertation.

7. Incorporate Visuals: If reviewers suggested the inclusion of visuals (e.g., graphs, charts, tables), incorporate them thoughtfully. Visuals can help convey complex information more effectively and enhance the overall presentation of your research.

8. Cross-Check Citations and References: Verify the accuracy of all citations and references. Ensure that every source cited in your dissertation is correctly formatted and included in the reference list. Inaccurate or missing citations can undermine your work's credibility.

9. Seek External Feedback: Beyond the feedback from your dissertation committee or reviewers, seek external feedback from peers, mentors, or colleagues. Fresh perspectives can uncover areas for improvement that you may have overlooked.

10. Maintain a Transparent Record: Document all revisions and changes made in response to reviewer comments. This transparent record serves as evidence of your diligence and commitment to addressing feedback.

11. Stay Aligned with Your Research Goals: Throughout the revision process, keep your research goals and objectives in mind. Ensure that revisions align with the core purpose of your dissertation. Avoid making changes that deviate from your research agenda.

12. Review with a Critical Eye: Approach your revised dissertation with a critical eye. Re-read your work as if you were a reviewer, and evaluate the effectiveness of your revisions. Make additional improvements as needed.

13. Proof of Progress: As you work through the revisions, share progress updates with your dissertation committee or reviewers. This demonstrates your commitment to addressing their feedback and allows them to monitor your progress.

Seek Additional Input

In the journey of refining your dissertation based on reviewer comments, seeking additional input is a valuable step to ensure the comprehensiveness and excellence of your revisions. While the feedback from your dissertation committee or peer reviewers is instrumental, widening the circle of input can provide fresh perspectives and insights. Here's how to effectively seek additional input:

1. Collaborate with Peers: Collaborating with peers who are also working on dissertations or research projects can be mutually beneficial. They can offer a peer's perspective and share their experiences in addressing feedback. Peer input can uncover areas for improvement that may not have been evident initially.

2. Consult Subject Matter Experts: Depending on the specific comments and areas of your dissertation, consider consulting subject matter experts in relevant fields. Their specialized knowledge can help you address complex or technical feedback effectively. Engaging with experts can also lead to valuable discussions and suggestions.

3. Connect with Writing Centers: Many academic institutions have writing centers staffed with experienced writing tutors. These centers offer support in improving writing style, grammar, and overall dissertation structure. Seeking guidance from writing center professionals can enhance the clarity and readability of your work.

4. Engage with Research Advisors: Your research advisor, if different from your dissertation committee chair, can provide guidance and input on revisions. They are familiar with your research journey and can offer valuable insights into aligning revisions with your research goals.

5. Attend Workshops and Seminars: Universities and academic organizations often host workshops and seminars on dissertation writing and revision. Participating in such events can expose you to diverse perspectives and strategies for addressing reviewer comments effectively. It also provides an opportunity to network with fellow researchers.

6. Utilize Online Communities: Online academic communities and forums can be valuable resources for seeking additional input. Platforms like academic subreddits, LinkedIn groups, or specialized research forums allow you to share your challenges, seek advice, and benefit from the collective wisdom of the academic community.

7. Solicit Feedback from Trusted Colleagues: Trusted colleagues, mentors, or advisors who may not be directly involved in your dissertation committee can offer valuable insights. Their distance from your work can provide an objective viewpoint and identify areas that require improvement.

8. Leverage Professional Editing Services: Professional dissertation editing services can provide comprehensive feedback on your revisions. These services often employ experts in various fields who can review your work for clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic standards. While they may not replace the input of your committee, they can provide an additional layer of feedback.

9. Conduct Peer Reviews: Consider conducting peer reviews of your revised dissertation chapters. Exchange chapters with fellow graduate students or colleagues and provide constructive feedback to each other. Peer reviews can help identify issues and inconsistencies that may have been overlooked.

10. Stay Open to Diverse Perspectives: When seeking additional input, stay open to diverse perspectives and opinions. Different reviewers may have varying suggestions for improvement. Embrace the opportunity to consider multiple viewpoints and choose revisions that align with your research goals.

Seeking additional input beyond your dissertation committee or peer reviewers can enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of your revisions. Collaboration with peers, consultation with experts, engagement with writing centers, and participation in academic communities all contribute to a more robust and refined dissertation. This collective input ensures that your work reflects the highest standards of academic rigor and excellence.

Addressing reviewer comments is an integral part of the dissertation process. Embrace feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement. By organizing, prioritizing, and implementing revisions effectively, you can refine your dissertation and increase your chances of a successful defense. Remember that the feedback you receive is a valuable resource that contributes to your development as a scholar and researcher.

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

May 3, 2017.

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our professional dissertation editing se...

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our thesis editing service is discounted...

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

March 14, 2017.

Neurology Journal now includes Falcon Scientific Editing in its Professio...

Useful Links

Academic Editing | Thesis Editing | Editing Certificate | Resources

• Dissertation Advisory Committee
• Introduction

Harvard Griffin GSAS strives to provide students with timely, accurate, and clear information. If you need help understanding a specific policy, please contact the office that administers that policy.

• Application for Degree
• Credit for Completed Graduate Work
• Ad Hoc Degree Programs
• Acknowledging the Work of Others
• Formatting Your Dissertation
• Publishing Options
• Subject, Invention, and Patents
• Submitting Your Dissertation
• English Language Proficiency
• PhD Program Requirements
• Secondary Fields
• Year of Graduate Study (G-Year)
• Master's Degrees
• Grade and Examination Requirements
• Conduct and Safety
• Financial Aid
• Non-Resident Students
• Registration
• Residence Halls
• Student Groups

Dissertation Advisory Committee; Thesis Acceptance Certificate

The Dissertation Advisory Committee formally approves the dissertation by signing the Thesis Acceptance Certificate . In PhD programs that are not lab-based, this committee also guides the student in writing the dissertation. The committee should work cohesively in supporting the student to produce their best work. The signatures of these faculty members on the Thesis Acceptance Certificate indicate formal acceptance of the student’s scholarly contribution to the field.  

In some fields, especially in the sciences, the Dissertation Advisory Committee described below is known locally as the “Dissertation Defense Committee.” In these programs, a separate additional committee (also called the Dissertation Advisory Committee) that includes the student’s primary advisor, will guide the student’s progress until submission for formal review by the DAC/defense committee. The members of the DAC/defense committee give formal approval to the finished work, but the student’s work will be understood to have occurred under the guidance of the primary advisor. The changes to the DAC/defense committee as described below do not in any way affect the essential structure of dissertation advising that already exists in lab-based PhD programs. 

The following policy applies to every Harvard Griffin GSAS Dissertation Advisory Committee formed on or after July 1, 2024. Any Dissertation Advisory Committee approved before July 1, 2024 is subject to the rules outlined below, see “Grandfathering.”  

Effective July 1, 2024:  

•  The graduate thesis for the PhD shall be accepted, and the Thesis Acceptance Certificate signed, by at least three advisors, who will form the Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC). At least two members of the committee shall be on-ladder faculty members. 
• In FAS-based programs, the Director of Graduate Studies or Department Chair or Area Chair shall sign off on the proposed committee.  
• For programs based outside the FAS, the Program Head shall sign off. 
• A program may petition the Dean of Harvard Griffin GSAS to consider a variation to the above requirement. 
• A Professor in Residence or Professor of the Practice may serve as a non-chairing member of the DAC, as long as the committee composition is consistent with “1.”  
•  Senior Lecturers and other non-ladder faculty may serve on the DAC as the third member when appropriate, as approved by the Director of Graduate Studies, Department Chair, Area Chair, or Program Head, as long as the committee composition is consistent with “1.” 
• Tenured emeriti faculty members (including research professors) may serve on the DAC. They may co-chair the DAC with a current on-ladder faculty member from the student’s department or program but may not serve as the sole chair. 
• Non-Harvard faculty of equivalent appointment rank to on-ladder faculty at Harvard may serve as one of the non-chairing members of the DAC.  
• A committee with co-chairs shall require a third member, consistent with ”1.” 
• Additional members may be appointed to the DAC, as long as the core three-member committee is consistent with ”1.” 
• They may continue to serve as a committee member if they have moved to another institution with an appointment rank equivalent to on-ladder at Harvard.  
• Or, if they are no longer serving on the DAC (by choice of the student, the student’s program, and/or the departing faculty member), the advisor must be replaced in accordance with ”1.” 
• If the departing faculty member will remain as chair on the DAC, a co-chair must be designated in accordance with “1.” The co-chair may, in this instance, be the Director of Graduate Studies in the student’s program if a faculty member with field expertise is not available to serve in this capacity. 

Please note:

• “On ladder” refers to faculty members with tenure or who are tenure-track. The phrase “on ladder” is generally not used at HMS, but all HMS and HCSPH assistant, associate, and full professors are considered to be “on ladder” according to HMS Faculty Affairs, and, for the purposes of this legislation, may serve on the DAC/defense committee. 
• With regard to paragraph 3.b.ii, and in keeping with the spirit of this legislation, ordinarily a scholar appointed as a College Fellow would not be ready to serve as one of the three core members of the committee. 
• With regard to paragraph 3.b.iv, individuals who do not fit this category (e.g., a scholar holding a non-ladder faculty position at another institution) may sit on the committee as a fourth member, in accordance with paragraph 3.d.  
• On the rare occasion that a situation requires special consideration, programs are advised to consult with the Dean of Harvard Griffin GSAS.  

Grandfathering

Grandfathering, and rules applying to all dissertation advisory committees, regardless of status prior to July 1, 2024:  

For dissertation advisory committees approved before July 1, 2024 under the former policy ( Two signatories must be members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS); FAS emeriti (including research professors) and faculty members from other Schools at Harvard who hold appointments on Harvard Griffin GSAS degree committees are authorized to sign DACs as FAS members. Harvard Griffin GSAS strongly recommends that the chair of the dissertation committee be a member of the FAS. If approved by the department, it is possible to have co-chairs of the dissertation committee as long as one is a member of FAS) , the following rules apply:   

Dissertation Advisory Committees approved prior to July 1, 2024 will be grandfathered, except in two situations:  

• An existing DAC chaired by an individual whose faculty appointment does not meet the requirements of the new rules will need to be adjusted. A co-chair should be designated, with the option of appointing the DGS to serve as co-chair, as allowed in paragraph 3.e.iii;  
• An existing DAC with fewer than three members should be updated, and the new member(s) should be consistent with the new policy.   

Thesis Acceptance Certificate

Contact info, noël bisson, shelby johnson, explore events.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Sample emails to your dissertation supervisor

Published on October 13, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on March 24, 2017.

Table of contents

Making an appointment, asking questions, confirming agreements.

Dear Dr. Janssen,

The college has informed me that you will be my supervisor. I would therefore like to make an initial appointment to discuss my dissertation idea with you.

I look forward to hearing from you as to when you would be available to meet with me.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Dear Prof. Smith,

I have encountered several difficulties while working on my dissertation. Could you please answer the following questions?

• I have found only limited literature on the concept of “social enforcement.” Are you familiar with any authors who have written on this topic?
• Measuring “social enforcement” in the literature has proven virtually impossible. At this point I would like to use “social control” as a starting point for the concept. What are your thoughts on this?

I would like to make an appointment to discuss these questions with you. When would be convenient for you?

I am writing in follow-up to our meeting on Monday. Could you please check the notes I have prepared concerning what we agreed and confirm that they are accurate?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2017, March 24). Sample emails to your dissertation supervisor. Scribbr. Retrieved August 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/tips/sample-emails-to-your-dissertation-supervisor/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Financial Advisor

You Should Get A Financial Advisor

Updated: Aug 17, 2023, 9:50am

A recent survey from the financial advisory fintech Intelliflo found that while 59% of Americans want financial advice, only 32% turn to registered financial advisors. At the same time, more than 40% of Gen Xers, Millennials and Gen Zers turn to digital sources for advice.

However, while TikTok and your favorite podcast may be great resources for learning new life hacks or vicariously watching the Renaissance and Eras tours, the financial advice on these platforms rarely comes from qualified advisors.

The people creating content and profiting from your views are incentivized to keep you watching, clicking and using their services, even if what they’re recommending isn’t in your best interest. Working with a credentialed, fiduciary financial advisor doesn’t have to be expensive and can make a massive positive difference in your financial life.

Advertisement

Datalign advisory.

Access to thousands of financial advisors.

Match with a pre-screened financial advisor that is right for you.

Connect with your match for a free, no-obligation call.

What Is a Financial Advisor?

A financial advisor is a professional who works with clients to help them make decisions about their investments, debt, taxes and long-term financial goals. It’s a broad industry, and there are many different types of advisors , including wealth managers, investment advisors and financial planners.

The credentialing, education and licensing requirements can vary between advisor types, but two of the most well-known and reputable certifications for financial advisors designate them as certified financial planners ( CFPs ) and chartered financial analysts ( CFAs ):

• CFP: A professional who assists clients in a variety of financial topics, including retirement, investing and estate planning. The advisor earns a CFP credential by completing rigorous requirements, including earning a four-year degree, completing coursework on financial planning, providing financial planning services to the public, passing an exam and participating in continuing education courses.
• CFA: An advisor who provides investment analysis and wealth management services. The CFA distinction is the gold standard for the investment industry; to earn the credential, advisors must pass a three-part exam, complete work experience requirements and submit references.

5 Advantages of a Financial Advisor

No matter what stage of life or income bracket you’re in, a financial advisor can be beneficial. The advantages of a financial advisor are numerous. Depending on the type of financial advisor you choose, here are five ways you may benefit from working with an experienced and reputable advisor:

1. Accountability

When you hire a financial advisor, they will work with you to develop a plan for your money and investments so you can achieve your goals. However, the plan will only work if you stick with it, following the contribution and savings guidelines that your advisor outlines.

Meeting with an advisor and setting periodic check-ins will hold you accountable and ensure you’re on track to meet your goals. And if your circumstances change or you make mistakes, they can help you adapt.

2. Asset Allocation

If you are new to investing, deciding which securities to invest in—and how much of your portfolio should be invested in various categories—can be challenging. A financial advisor will review your finances, goals and risk tolerance to create an investment portfolio for you. In fact, portfolio management is the most common service that financial advisors provide.

Based on your age and financial situation, your advisor will build a portfolio that’s a mix of stocks, bonds, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Your advisor will also make periodic adjustments to your asset allocation , changing what percentage of your portfolio is invested in different types of investments to maximize growth and minimize risk.

3. Debt Management

Debt management is an often overlooked advantage of working with a financial advisor. If you are struggling with debt, such as student loans, credit cards or medical bills, an advisor with debt management expertise will create a debt management plan so you can prioritize and accelerate debt payoff the most efficient and painless way possible.

The financial advisor will review your finances, including bank and credit card statements, to create a budget that suits your needs. They will work with you to identify areas where you can reduce your expenses, and they can also share strategies to help you accelerate debt repayment, such as transferring credit card balances to a card with a promotional 0% APR, refinancing your mortgage or refinancing your student loans.

4. Financial Goal Planning

A common misconception is that financial advisors only work with high-net-worth individuals or those that are near retirement age. But a financial advisor can be beneficial to individuals of all ages and income levels.

No matter what your goals are for your money, a financial advisor can design a plan to save and invest your money so you can reach those milestones. For example, a financial advisor can give you advice for the following goals:

• If you want to retire early. For those focused on retiring early , a financial advisor will help you determine if your goal is feasible. If it’s realistic, the advisor will create a roadmap you can follow to save and invest so you can retire comfortably.
• If you want to pay for a child’s college education. If you have children and want to help them pay for college, a financial advisor will identify tax-advantaged savings options, such as 529 college savings plans . They can also recommend particular investments.
• If you want to buy a home. For those who want to buy a home, a financial advisor will go over your finances and work with you to determine a budget for a new house and discuss ways to boost your credit so you can qualify for the best possible mortgage rates. A financial advisor can also be invaluable in pointing out key considerations, such as budgeting for the upkeep of your home.
• If you want to donate to charity. Whether you want to start a scholarship fund while you’re still living or leave your estate to a favorite charity after you pass away, a financial advisor can help you structure your donation in the most tax-efficient and sustainable way.

5. Tax Optimization

Although a financial advisor is different from a certified public accountant (CPA) or tax preparer, they understand tax laws and regulations and can make recommendations to minimize your tax bill. They can give you suggestions on how to structure your savings, what kinds of investment accounts to use and deductions to claim that can boost your savings significantly while reducing your tax burden.

If you invest in the market in taxable accounts, the advisor will likely recommend tax-loss harvesting too. Tax-loss harvesting is a strategy involving the sales of securities at a loss to offset how much you have to pay in capital gains taxes from selling securities at a profit.

Costs of Working With a Financial Advisor

The advantages of working with a financial advisor are substantial, and the cost of an advisor may be lower than you think. How advisors are paid varies based on the type of advisor they are, but there are four common pay structures:

• Assets-under-management (AUM) fee. According to a study released by the Investment Adviser Association , 95% of advisors registered with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission are paid via a percentage of the client’s AUM. The percentage varies by advisor and their firm, but it typically ranges from 0.50% to 2.00% of AUM.
• Hourly fee. In addition to the AUM fee, some advisors charge an hourly fee for their services. The hourly rate is often charged if you reach out to an advisor for advice on a specific situation or a single goal. Hourly fees for financial advisors range from $150 to $400 per hour.
• Fixed fee. Some advisors charge fixed rates—a one-time lump sum—for specific services. For example, you may pay a one-time fee for a financial plan that outlines the path to retirement. Typical fees range from $1,000 to $3,000.
• Commission. Some financial advisors earn money by earning commissions on the sale of certain products—such as insurance policies—or securities. These advisors are not fiduciaries , so keep that in mind when reviewing your options and an advisor’s recommendations.

Now that you know about the advantages of a financial advisor and typical costs, you can start researching what advisors are available near you. You can find credentialed financial advisors through the CFP Board or the CFA Institute .

Looking For A Financial Advisor?

Get In Touch With A Pre-screened Financial Advisor In 3 Minutes

Via Datalign Advisory

• How To Protect Your Assets
• How To Choose A Financial Advisor
• How To Build Wealth
• Are You In The Top 1%?
• Types Of Financial Advisors
• What Is A Financial Advisor?
• What Is A Financial Planner?
• What Is Fiduciary Duty?
• What Are Trust Funds?
• What Is Asset Management?
• What Is A RIA?
• What Is A CFP?
• What's My Net Worth?
• Bad Advice From Financial Advisors
• More In Financial Advisors
• Best Retirement Income Funds
• Best Roth IRA Accounts
• Best Target Date Funds For Retirement
• Top 4 Retirement Worries
• Traditional IRA Vs. Roth IRA

Next Up In Financial Advisor

• HNWI: High-Net-Worth Individuals
• How To Protect Your Assets From Lawsuits Or Creditors
• How Fiduciary Duty Impacts Financial Advisors
• What Is A Registered Investment Advisor (RIA)?
• Top 10 Financial Certifications For Financial Advisors

7 Life-Changing Events a Financial Advisor Can Help With

Financial Planning Basics

How To Become A Financial Advisor

What You Need to Know About Independent Financial Advisors

Financial Advisor Vs. Financial Planner: What’s The Difference?

What Is FINRA?

For the past seven years, Kat has been helping people make the best financial decisions for their unique situations, whether they're looking for the right insurance policies or trying to pay down debt. Kat has expertise in insurance and student loans, and she holds certifications in student loan and financial education counseling.

The Penn Libraries has built a new, user-focused library catalog, with a simpler look and easier search features. Explore it at find.library.upenn.edu .

Research and Write Effectively: Dissertation, Thesis, Term paper

Working on a doctoral dissertation, a master's thesis, a senior capstone, or an undergraduate term paper? Meet with a subject librarian to refine your research question, design a literature review search, learn about research methods, and connect to tools for qualitative and quantitative analysis.  

Book a consultation

Consult with a Librarian

Students are invited to meet with their subject librarian to receive help with:

• Refining a research topic
• Accessing guidance about qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research design
• Locating collections of primary sources and secondary datasets
• Constructing and documenting a literature search strategy
• Evaluating the credibility of sources
• Learning about software options for gathering, storing, and analyzing data
• Using citation style guides to give credit to sources 

Not sure who to contact? Chat with us online , or request a consultation to be matched with a specialist.

More Services

Looking for more ways to get help with your research? Check out these services.

Identify Resources: Search Skills and Techniques

Read and write critically: information literacy, upcoming events.

Research Basics

Learn fundamental skills for gathering literature relevant to any research project.

• 4:00pm - 5:00pm
• Goldstein Electronic Classroom, Room 114, Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center

Reference Management Workshop

Learn how to use the popular citation management tool Zotero to keep track of your sources as you research and easily cite sources as you are writing.

• 1:00pm - 2:00pm
• Gershwind & Bennett Family Collaborative Classroom, Holman Biotech Commons

In this workshop, we will walk you through the basics of using Zotero to save and organize sources as well as generate citations. 

• 11:00am - 12:30pm
• Graduate Student Center, 3615 Locust Walk, Third Floor, Room 304
• Get Expert Help
• Undergraduates
• Graduate Students

Paradise Beach Resort & Spa

View prices for your travel dates

• Excellent 307
• Very Good 336
• Average 132
• Terrible 57
• All languages ( 888 )
• English ( 449 )
• Dutch ( 155 )
• Polish ( 73 )

" There's nothing around the hotel. You either have to buy a trip from the hotel or use local resellers. Prices at the hotel are about 30% hig "

" Try the Indian restaurant food...its delicious and the service is too notch "

" The resort have 4 pools, 3 Restaurants. 4 Bars. And if u are on full board u can drink eat as much as u want on any bars. Food is great. "

" Don't go there "

" Be open minded and flexible to accept some challenges so you can enjoy the good things has to offer like an outstanding Acrobatics show. "

Own or manage this property? Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and much more.

PARADISE BEACH RESORT & SPA - Updated 2024