A useful PhD supervisor meeting agenda identifies what has changed, what is blocking progress and which decisions you need. Send a short agenda with any essential material in advance, according to the arrangement you agree with your supervisor. Finish by recording actions, owners and dates.
You do not need to report every hour of work. A meeting is most useful when it helps you make progress on the research. The templates below work for an early planning discussion, a difficult middle stage or a meeting about a draft.
A copyable PhD supervisor meeting agenda
Meeting date and time:
Attendees:
Main decision needed:
1. Since the last meeting
- Completed:
- Changed or delayed:
- Previous actions still open:
2. Main discussion
- Question or problem:
- Evidence / document to review:
- Options considered:
- My proposed next step and why:
3. Other decisions or support needed
- [Item]
4. Agreed actions
- Action | Owner | Target date | Dependency
5. Next meeting and material to send
- Date:
- Document / question:
- Agreed send-by date:Keep the live agenda short enough to scan. Link to longer drafts or results rather than pasting them into the meeting notes. Use the storage and communication systems approved for your project, especially when material contains confidential or participant data.
A 30-minute meeting example
The timing below is an example, not a supervision standard. Adjust it to the meeting length, number of supervisors and the question that needs attention. Put the most consequential decision early enough that it cannot be squeezed out by updates.
| Time | Discussion | Desired result |
|---|---|---|
| 0–5 minutes | Brief progress and outstanding actions | Shared understanding of what changed |
| 5–20 minutes | Main research question or obstacle | A decision, or a clear route to making one |
| 20–25 minutes | Secondary issue and upcoming deadline | A priority or agreed follow-up |
| 25–30 minutes | Actions, owners and next meeting | A record everyone understands |
For example, the main item might be: “My pilot interviews are taking longer than expected. Should I narrow the research question, revise the interview guide or change the recruitment target?” Bring the evidence needed to discuss those options, including any ethics or protocol implications. Do not assume changes can proceed without the required approval.
What to send before the meeting
- The agenda and the main decision you would like to reach.
- A short progress summary since the previous discussion.
- The specific draft section, results or matrix needed for that decision.
- A clear request for the kind of feedback you need.
- Any approaching deadline that changes the available options.
Agree how much notice your supervisor needs and what they can reasonably review. Sending a full chapter shortly before the meeting does not create time to read it. If a document is late, say so and ask whether the meeting should focus on an outline or a smaller question.
The University of Exeter’s researcher-development resource on working with supervisors is a useful prompt for discussing the working relationship. Your own department’s supervision agreement and research-degree handbook should guide local expectations.
Example 1: your first supervisor meeting
An early meeting should clarify how you will work together as well as what you will study. You may not yet have results, and that is fine. Bring your current understanding of the project and the questions that would help you begin.
- What should the first research milestone demonstrate?
- Which reading or training would be most useful first?
- How often should we meet, and how will we arrange dates?
- What format and lead time work for draft feedback?
- How should I raise a problem between meetings?
- Which decisions need other supervisors, departmental input or formal approval?
If you are still choosing a supervisor, start with how to find a PhD supervisor. Once the relationship is established, the starting-a-PhD guide can help you anticipate broader changes in how you work.
Example 2: discussing a literature review
“I have read lots of papers” is difficult to discuss. A sharper item is: “These studies use different definitions of the same concept. Should I narrow my review to one definition, or make that disagreement part of the argument?”
Bring a small extract from your literature review matrix and show where the definitions or methods diverge. Ask whether your proposed comparison is defensible, what important work is missing and how the review should serve the research question.
Example 3: when you have made less progress than planned
Do not invent progress to make the meeting easier. Explain what is incomplete, what blocked it and what you have tried. Distinguish a research problem from a workload or wellbeing problem so the discussion can address the right issue.
A useful agenda item might be: “I expected to finish the analysis, but the missing-data problem affects the current method. I have checked X and Y. Can we decide whether to change the method or seek statistical advice before I continue?”
If the difficulty is broader than the project, you can ask about support without disclosing more personal information than you wish. For workload pressure, the overwhelmed-at-university guide provides practical next steps and routes to help.
Turn feedback into an action record
Write actions in terms of a result. “Work on the chapter” is vague. “Send a two-page revised argument outline by the agreed date” is easier to follow up. Include supervisor actions too, such as introducing a collaborator or reviewing a section. For a heavily commented chapter or thesis draft, use the fuller system for turning supervisor feedback into an action plan.
| Action | Owner | Target date | Dependency or check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compare two candidate methods on the pilot data | Student | Agreed date | Confirm the dataset is suitable |
| Comment on the proposed analysis plan | Supervisor | Agreed date | Student sends the short plan first |
| Confirm the next milestone requirements | Student / programme office | Agreed date | Use the current programme guidance |
Send a concise record after the meeting if that is your agreed practice, and invite corrections where a decision is unclear. Do not describe silence as formal approval. Keep the record somewhere you can find it before the next meeting.
If supervisors disagree
Summarise the different recommendations neutrally and ask what criteria should determine the choice. Where practical, arrange a shared discussion so you are not carrying incompatible instructions between separate conversations. If the issue remains unresolved, check the programme’s advice and escalation routes.
How often should PhD supervision meetings happen?
Frequency depends on your programme, study mode, research stage and supervision agreement. Check any institutional minimum requirements and agree a schedule that meets the project’s needs. Revisit the arrangement when fieldwork, deadlines or circumstances change.
What if I have no results to show?
Bring a question, an obstacle, an interpretation of the reading or a decision about the next step. Research meetings are not only for completed results. A clear account of uncertainty can be more useful than a long list of activities.
A final check before you join
Can you state the main decision in one sentence? Do you have the relevant material open? Have you reviewed the last action record? Those three checks will usually do more for the meeting than adding another page of background. Use the PhD time-management guide to reserve time for both preparation and follow-through.
Featured photo: Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash.