An octopus with three hearts: how to approach PhD supervision

“We functioned like an octopus with three hearts.”

That’s how I once described my PhD supervision experience. I used to picture our relationship like an octopus: the two branchial hearts pump blood to the gills to absorb oxygen – just like my two supervisors, who worked together to support me by offering knowledge and direction, helping me take in what I needed to grow. I pictured myself as the systemic heart, pumping oxygen-rich blood through the body – taking their guidance and using it to drive my research and personal development.

My two supervisors and I were from different countries, cultures and backgrounds. Despite our individual differences – as well as the fact that my supervisors had quite different styles – like the three hearts of the octopus, we formed a connected and dynamic working relationship that kept the entire journey alive and flowing. That experience shaped the way I now think about supervision: not as a fixed method, but as something that adapts, flows and supports.

1. There’s no ‘best’ supervision style

It is widely accepted that supervisors can “make or break” a PhD student. Supervisory style is considered a key component of the supervisor-student relationship in doctoral education and earlier scholars have discussed a range of supervision models, focusing on the need to adapt the supervisory relationship to meet the changing needs of students.

• Nurturing supervisor-supervisee relationships
• How to support neurodivergent postgraduate researchers
• ‘I’ve been a research supervisor for 35 years and I’m still learning’

This raises the question: which style should a supervisor adopt? Or is one style better than others?

The answer is that a supervisory style that works well for one student may not necessarily align with the supervisor’s preferred approach – or might fall outside their area of expertise. There is no one-size-fits-all supervisory style. The best style is the one that suits the student, the stage and the moment – and knowing when to shift.

In my own case, I had two supervisors: one very experienced and the other for whom I was her first supervisee. Their contrasting experiences enriched my journey. What mattered most was not their level of experience but how they supported me in different and valuable ways. The support I received was shaped by a number of factors, including which stage I was in and whether I was having “up” or “down” days. 

For example, when I was drafting research objectives and questions or preparing my findings and discussion, I often received more structured guidance. During the more difficult moments of my PhD, however, they offered stronger pastoral support – sometimes through sharing stories of their own doctoral journeys to help me see my challenges as a normal part of the process. This blend showed me that effective supervision adapts to both the work at hand and the individual behind it.

2. Clarity beats assumption

A strained relationship in PhD supervision can result from various factors, including poor communication and differences in how much support or closeness is expected. Supervisors and students often hold different expectations about both the nature of their relationship and the style of supervision. Some students might hesitate to speak up or struggle to interpret feedback. Others might expect more hands-on guidance than the supervisor intends to provide.

That’s why early conversations matter – not just about deadlines or deliverables, but about how you’ll work together.

How often will you meet? How do you prefer to give and receive feedback? What are your expectations around independence?

Setting clear expectations early can prevent tension and lay the groundwork for a trusting, productive relationship.

I believe that in my case, setting expectations was partly shaped by my supervisors’ different positions: the experienced supervisor already knew how important it was to set expectations at the start, while for my second supervisor, it might have been a natural step as she was beginning her journey as a supervisor. 

From our very first meeting, we all agreed that I would send them written work every three and a half weeks and that we would meet every four weeks. Having this shared framework from the start gave me both structure and reassurance, and helped us build a consistent way of working together like an octopus.

3. Reflection isn’t a luxury – it’s part of supervision

Creating timelines, focusing on milestones and working toward goals – such as collecting data, submitting drafts and preparing for the viva – can easily become a routine that sees only the project and not the person. But building in space for reflection – with your student and yourself – is essential for fostering mutual learning, deeper empathy and growth within the supervisory relationship.

Encouraging students to reflect on their growth, challenges and learning process helps them develop as independent researchers while recognising them as whole people – not just deliverables on a timeline. At the same time, supervisors can benefit from pausing to ask: what’s working? What’s shifting? What am I learning too? These moments of reflection help supervisors stay responsive, adapt their approach and grow alongside their students.

Supervision isn’t a one-way process. It’s a shared learning journey – and reflection is what keeps it alive.

4. Diversity is central: inclusive supervision starts with awareness

Today’s doctoral researchers are more diverse than ever – culturally, linguistically and educationally. And so are their supervisors. The ACADISCRI survey, on discrimination in French higher education and research institutions, revealed that many students – especially international students, first-generation students, ethnic or religious minorities, LGBTQ+ students and students with disabilities – found academia to be unwelcoming.

Students with diverse, intersectional identities may have distinct learning styles, face sociopolitical pressures and encounter specific challenges in navigating academic life. They often experience higher levels of stress, communication barriers and a stronger sense of isolation, along with systemic obstacles not faced by more privileged peers.

That’s why supervisors must look beyond the research project and be attuned to the lived experiences of their students. Developing awareness of how race, gender, language, religion, disability or migration experience shapes a student’s journey isn’t optional – it’s central to effective supervision. When we do that, supervision becomes a space of inclusion, growth and mutual respect.

I remember moments at the beginning of my PhD journey, when I struggled to interpret my supervisor’s feedback, unsure whether I had done well or not, until I came to understand that in the UK feedback is often given more indirectly, especially when something falls short of expectations. Luckily, my supervisors were already aware of how diversity – including students’ cultural, linguistic, educational, professional and personal backgrounds – can influence their research development. In every meeting, we also went through their feedback together to make sure I was clear about it and fully understood their expectations.

Taken together, these four principles reflect what I call “octopus supervision”. Just as the octopus depends on all three hearts to function, effective supervision relies on multiple, interconnected elements – adaptability, clarity, reflection and a commitment to inclusion. When supervision flows in this way – flexible, responsive and grounded in mutual understanding – it nurtures not just research but the people behind it.

Setenay Dilek Fidler is senior lecturer at the University of Westminster.