The Nature 2025 survey of more than 3,700 PhD candidates found that 69% of students who spent more than one hour per week with their supervisor were satisfied with their PhD experience. Interestingly, 82% of students who felt emotionally and academically supported reported satisfaction, even if the total hours of contact were not very high.
This suggests that time matters, but time alone is not a full measure of good supervision. The quality of engagement plays a greater role than the quantity of minutes. More over the study has not included south asian perspective, more so from India, worlds most populous nation and emerging hotspot in science and technology. The data presented is skewed to specific regions than of universal appeal.
Doctoral education is not only about meetings. Students do not need supervisors to watch them work; they need structured guidance, honest feedback, and direction at the right time. A supervisor can hold weekly meetings but still leave students confused, unsupported, and anxious. On the other hand, a supervisor with fewer but well-planned interactions may offer strong intellectual and emotional guidance. One such example is from Pondicherry University, India. Now Emeritus Professor S. A. Abbasi has developed a system of impactful supervision. He introduced a notes system, wherein a supervisor and scholars converse daily. Scholars ask questions, submit results, and raise doubts in writing. The supervisor responds accordingly. This way no conversation, direction, suggestion, or advice gets lost during the tenure of the PhD course. This method of supervision should be studied further for its overall impact on student-supervisor correspondence for students satisfaction and impactful research outcome.
Another aspect that is vital in knowing what makes PhDs happy is wider (global) study on the theme. Supervision practices differ widely across labs, institutions, and countries. There is no single model that fits everyone. In well-resourced universities, supervisors usually have research groups, mentorship training, and structured review systems. In developing systems, including India, students may rely more on self-learning, peer support, and informal networks.
Because research environments vary so much, it is difficult to conclude what universally defines good supervision. What works in a well-funded research lab in Europe may not automatically apply in institutions with limited funding, infrastructure, or administrative support. In some cases, supervisors are giving all good time and advice to their PhDs, but they lack institutional support, funding, and required infrastructure. No amount of time can bring happiness in PhDs when they have to write for permission to department heads to use 10 pages of A4 sized white papers for printing or making a copy of a research paper.
India has a large pool of motivated and bright PhD students, especially in fields like biotechnology, data science, clean energy, and materials research. Many young Indian researchers stay updated with latest literature, computational tools, and global trends. Informal observations from academic circles reveal that in some cases, students may even be ahead of their supervisors in modern techniques or emerging knowledge areas. This sometimes happens because academic hiring in parts of the country has historically not always been based solely on research merit. Additionally, rapid advances in science mean younger scholars may adopt new tools faster.
At the same time, Indian supervisors often face heavy teaching and administrative workload. Faculty handle examinations, accreditation work, university committees, event duties, admissions processes, and classroom teaching along with guiding research. Even sincere supervisors may struggle to consistently engage with students due to limited time and institutional pressure. The result is variation in supervision quality, not due to unwillingness, but due to systemic structure.
Poor supervision no doubt produces unhappy PhDs, but also can delay research, reduce creativity, and lead to burnout. As the Nature study has highlighted that 43% of PhD students report harassment or mistreatment and 41% are worried about job prospects. Ultimately, the supervision must help address the known issues in student-supervisor relationship by offering clarity, fairness, and emotional support.