How to work effectively with your PhD supervisor (especially in a qualitative doctorate)

Most PhD students begin their doctorate assuming their supervisor will be their anchor. The steady guide. The person who sees the full arc of the project and calmly steers it forward.

And sometimes that is exactly what happens.

But sometimes supervision feels different.

You send a chapter and receive feedback that feels vague. Or overwhelming. Or contradictory. Weeks pass without a reply. Comments land that feel sharper than you expected. In qualitative research especially, where interpretation, positioning and judgement matter so much, unclear feedback can feel destabilising.

If you have ever thought, “I have no idea what they actually want from me”, you are not alone.

Supervision is a skill. And not every academic has been trained in how to do it well.

The good news is this: while you cannot control your supervisor’s style, you can influence how the interaction unfolds.

When supervision feels frustrating

Before jumping to solutions, it helps to name what is actually happening.

For qualitative PhD students, common supervision stress points include:

You receive comments like “be more critical” or “tighten this up” without concrete guidance.

You are told to trust your interpretation, but then your interpretation is heavily rewritten.

Two supervisors give different advice and you feel caught between them.

Silences stretch long enough that you start questioning your own progress.

The symptom is frustration. Or anxiety. Or second-guessing.

The underlying issue is usually ambiguity.

Clarity reduces anxiety. So the aim is not to change your supervisor’s personality. It is to reduce ambiguity wherever possible.

Be specific about the feedback you need

One of the biggest shifts you can make is to stop sending drafts with open-ended requests like, “I would love your thoughts.”

When you ask a broad question, you often receive broad feedback. And broad feedback is hard to act on.

Instead, narrow the focus.

If you are unsure about structure, ask whether the argument flows logically across sections. If you are concerned about theoretical positioning, ask whether your use of theory feels coherent and justified. If you are drafting a qualitative methodology chapter, ask whether your justification for your epistemological stance is clear enough.

Specific questions tend to produce usable answers.

This does two things. It makes your supervisor’s task easier, and it makes the feedback feel less overwhelming when it returns.

Clarify feedback instead of decoding it alone

Qualitative doctoral work already involves interpretation. You do not need to interpret your supervisor’s comments in isolation as well.

If you receive feedback that feels unclear, respond by summarising what you think it means.

For example, you might say: “I understand that you are suggesting I expand the literature on X and move this section into the previous chapter. Is that correct?”.

This approach achieves three things. It ensures you are both aligned. It prevents wasted revision time. And it signals that you are engaging actively with the feedback rather than passively absorbing it.

Supervisors often appreciate this level of clarity, even if they do not explicitly say so.

Accept that one person cannot meet every need

There is a persistent myth that your supervisor should be everything: intellectual mentor, writing coach, emotional support, career strategist.

That is a lot to ask of one person.

In reality, strong PhD researchers build a wider support structure. This might include secondary supervisors, postdoctoral researchers, writing groups, or external academic communities.

For qualitative researchers in particular, discussing interpretation, reflexivity and positionality with peers can be invaluable. It normalises uncertainty and sharpens thinking.

Diversifying your support network does not mean your supervision is failing. It means you are building resilience into your doctoral experience.

Shift from dependency to collaboration

The most empowering shift you can make is psychological.

Your supervisor is not the gatekeeper of your PhD. They are a collaborator in it.

As your doctorate progresses, your confidence in your own judgement should increase. You will know your data more intimately than anyone else. You will understand your theoretical positioning more deeply.

Supervision works best when it evolves from directive guidance to informed dialogue.

If something does not sit right, it is acceptable to discuss it. Not defensively. Not confrontationally. But thoughtfully.

Doctoral maturity includes learning when to follow advice and when to interrogate it.

When supervision really is difficult

There are situations where supervision is genuinely problematic. Persistent silence. Repeated cancellation of meetings. Dismissive or disrespectful communication.

In those cases, documenting communication and speaking to a postgraduate director or graduate school can be appropriate.

But most supervision tension sits in the grey area of miscommunication rather than misconduct. That is where clearer questions and clearer boundaries make the biggest difference.

You are allowed to be strategic

Working well with your supervisor is not about being compliant. It is about being strategic.

Strategic researchers ask focused questions. Clarify ambiguity. Seek multiple perspectives. Protect their confidence. And recognise that supervision is part of their training, not a test of their worth.

If supervision has been a source of stress, it does not have to remain that way.

Small shifts in how you communicate can transform how the relationship feels.

If you would like more practical tools for handling supervision, feedback and writing momentum, my Cheat Sheet Library includes templates for asking better questions, structuring chapters, and responding to common feedback phrases. It is there for those moments when you need clarity quickly.

Lean more here: Cheat Sheet Library.