Aim

The aim of this guideline is to offer a helping hand for mentoring doctoral students and junior researchers undertaking doctoral work. This guide has been created by the AIO committee (Assistent In Opleiding, AIO) and Quality Committee.

Description

The aim of this guideline is to offer a helping hand for mentoring doctoral students and junior researchers undertaking doctoral work. However, there isn’t a recipe book available for the proper mentoring of doctoral students. After all, proper mentoring depends on the type of research, the project topics, and the personal requirements of both the mentor as well as the doctoral students.
However, the aims of mentoring can be set out:

• Maintaining the scientific quality of the thesis (quality);
• Contributing to the scientific and general development of the “doctoral student” (education);
• To coach the "doctoral student" during the first trajectory of his/her scientific career. At the end of their studies the doctoral student will know whether or not he/she is suited to a research career and what his/her future opportunities are (personal development).

An educational and mentoring agreement should be signed by the doctoral student as a safeguard prior to starting work. In addition to the project topics and the courses to be followed, the agreement should include the fact that the doctoral student is entitled to at least 8 hours of supervision per month with the mentor and a minimum of 2 hours per month with the supervisor. The form of mentoring is not described in any further detail in the education contract.
It is highly advisable for an education and mentoring plan to be drafted for junior researchers.

There are topics that need to be discussed and agreements that need to be made in order to facilitate the mentoring process and tailor it to the mentor and doctoral student/junior researcher. The nature of these agreements will differ for each pair of mentor/doctoral students.

A list of topics is provided in this guide, i.e.: (work) meetings, nature of the work, training and development, knowledge and skills and social aspects. Both the mentor and the doctoral student may be asked the following questions for each of these topics:
1)        Has the subject been discussed?
2)        Have (written) agreements been made?
3)        Are the mentor and the doctoral student both happy with the agreements?
4)        Are the agreements being observed?
5)        Are the agreements regularly reviewed to assess whether they need to be modified due to changes in circumstances (at least annually during the progress or annual review)

Recommendation
The EMGO+ directorate recommends supervisors, PhD students and junior researchers to use the topics mentioned in this guideline in the annual performance interview (jaargesprek).

(Work) meetings:

• Whether or not structured meetings; It is important to decide whether or not the meetings will be structured. This depends on the doctoral student’s and mentor's requirements.
• Frequency of meetings:
• A doctoral student should have at least an one weekly meeting with their day-to-day mentor (who is often a co-supervisor). Whether this actually happens, depends on the doctoral student’s requirements.
• A doctoral student should have at least one meeting per month with his/her supervisor. Whether this actually happens, depends on the doctoral student’s requirements.
• The format and nature of the work meeting (whether or not to have an agenda, action points minuted, which topics are to be discussed);
• Feedback provided by the mentor/doctoral student:

o    Frequency of general feedback (annual review, interim). An annual review is compulsory for everybody. In addition, a doctoral student will also need to undergo a progress review after 10 months and 3 years;
o    Mode of feedback (supportive/coaching?);
o    Sufficient interim feedback (outside the annual review).

Supplementary points for discussion:

• What is the quality of the discussion like?
• Is the mentor/doctoral student taking the meeting sufficiently seriously?
• Is the mentor/doctoral student reasonably available for questions/interim meetings?
• Is there a(n) (adequate/rapid) response to interim questions?

Nature of the work:

• Planning the project:
• Create a long-term plan at the start of the doctoral programme and a detailed plan every 3 months.
• Sufficient time should be allowed for writing articles. The time required will differ by article. As an indication: 3 months for data analysis + writing, increasing to 6 months for writing a review.

o    Evaluate whether the thesis can be completed in time and discuss options for a potential extension.

• Mentor’s/doctoral student’s tasks;
• Composition of the examining board;

When you start undertaking your doctoral work, it is important to know at an early stage who your (co-)supervisors are going to be, and how the supervision tasks are going to be distributed between them.

• Composition of the thesis;
• Organisation of the chapters and a plan for writing the chapters should be discussed and agreed early in the project.
• The doctoral student should be encouraged to complete 1 chapter in the context of creativity.
• It is advisable to encourage the doctoral student to complete the first article in their first year.
• Agreements/regulations in respect of the obligation to provide education.

Publications:

• Co-authorship of articles;

At the start of writing new articles there needs to be an agreement per article who the co-authors are going to be and the order of authors. This prevents later confusion and disagreements.

• Agreements on completion of the thesis;

If the doctoral student moves to another job once the thesis has been completed, agreements will need to be made about publications/ articles still to be submitted and those that have already been submitted. It is advisable for the doctoral student to complete the publications within the agreed time. If the doctoral student is unable to achieve this, then the submission date can be extended once. After this, the project leader, or someone else from the project group, should take the lead in writing the articles and will be entitled to become first author on the paper.

Education and development of the doctoral student:

• The number and conditions attached to conference attendance
• The general condition at the EMGO is that the researcher should present either a poster or an oral presentation when attending a conference.
• If there are no (or insufficient) funds to pay for the conference visit during the project, attempts should be made to find sponsorships/financing for the conference (for instance, from the VU University fund). An agreement will be needed  about who will write the application for funds.
• An average frequency of once per year is standard during the study period.
• Courses

Doctoral students are entitled to a minimum of 240 educational sessions distributed across the length of their studies (see the EMGO intranet: Doctoral students’ guidelines). For some doctoral students this will depend on the available means and time.
The supervisors should encourage the student to follow a broad range of courses. For instance, the VU University runs a course on Completing your thesis successfully & Personal efficiency.

• Participation in work meetings/discussions

Supervisors should encourage students to attend and actively participate in work meetings and consultations (presentations, articles, discussions) in order to enhance the student’s general scientific development. Encourage participation in roles within the EMGO. This may include membership of the AIOCommittee, Pak EM&GO, organising social activities, etc.

• Level of personal contribution and freedom in research;

This is, of course, dependent on the stage of the appointment and the student’s abilities and requirements. However, attempts should be made to encourage the student to make their own contribution to the study and to allow the student freedom in increasing measures in the research; this will ultimately produce a researcher who is able to design and implement studies independently.

• Writing up research proposals and reviews should be discussed, if possible.
• The mentor and student should review whether a part of the doctoral study (e.g. 1-6 months) could be carried out abroad (e.g. a work placement with an international partner).
• Career advice centre

Training and development for the mentor:

• There is a “Mentoring Doctoral Students” course available. See www.bhertz.nl
• Within the EMGO there are a number of peer support groups for mentors.

Intrinsic knowledge and skills

• Does the mentor/supervisor have sufficient knowledge and skills?
• Is he/she able to admit when he/she doesn’t know something and potentially involve others in the process?

Social aspects:

• Satisfied with settling in at the EMGO?
• Enough social contact with colleagues in the hallways and elsewhere?
• Enough intrinsic overlap with colleagues?
• Sufficient focus on balancing work and home life?
• Satisfied with the (physical) work space?
• Happy with (the number of) roommates?
• Room sufficiently quiet?
• Happy with table, chair and computer?

Other general points

• Are you satisfied with the encouragement provided by the mentoring?
• Does your mentor support you in potential conflict situations?
• Can you discuss everything you need to do to ensure your thesis progresses optimally?
• Has the extension of the appointment? (if required) been discussed and agreed well in advance?
• Is there someone you can talk to regarding any potential conflicts?

It is best for conflict situations between the mentor/professor and doctoral student to be solved within the same work unit. If required, a member of the AIO committee or Human Resources (P&O) can be appointed as a(n) (independent) mediator by the doctoral students/junior researchers.

• This guideline is closely associated with the VU University Medical Center’s "Doctoral student's guideline" (see EMGO intranet under the “doctoral students” heading).
• Guideline Checklist on conducting research for mentors and project leaders.

OIO: Researchers in training (Onderzoekers In Opleiding, OIO) are entitled to education/training in accordance with the UMC’s Collective Labour Agreement (Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst, CAO).
Junior researchers: Researchers falling under the VU University Medical Center’s CAO auspices. These researchers have no entitlement to education/training in terms of the CAO. The opportunities for training depend on the project budget and available time.
Doctoral students: Researchers falling under the auspices of the university’s CAO. These individuals are entitled to education/training according to the CAO.

V1.2: 1 Sep 2010: Addition of the recommendation to use the guideline in the annual performance interview.
V1.1: 1 Jan 2010: Translated into English.
V1.0: 1 Nov 2009.

Work discussions:

1. Have agreements been made about the frequency of meetings?
2. Have the compulsory annual reviews and progress reviews been carried out?
3. Are you satisfied with the frequency and nature of the discussions and the feedback provided?

Nature of the work

1. Is there regular planning?
2. Has an outline of the thesis been created and have agreements been made about the number of articles to be written?
3. Have agreements been made in respect of teaching?

Publications

1. Have the co-authors and order of authors been agreed in advance for each article?

Education and development of the doctoral student

1. Has an education and development plan been created?
2. Has the student been encouraged to actively participate in work discussions/consultations and participate in roles within the EMGO Institute?

Other general points:

1. Can you discuss everything you need to ensure your thesis progresses optimally?