Summary
Your first formal meeting with a thesis or dissertation supervisor sets the tone for the entire project. Arrive with a concise research vision, a short reading dossier (including your supervisor’s recent work), and clear questions about scope, methods, timelines, and expectations. Use a written agenda, agree concrete next steps, and capture decisions in a shared document afterwards. Discuss supervision logistics (meeting cadence, feedback style/turnaround, authorship, data/ethics) early to avoid confusion later.
Key moves: (1) Research your supervisor’s interests and preferred working style. (2) Prepare a 1–2 page concept note plus a 90-second “elevator pitch.” (3) Bring an initial timeline and risk map; invite critique. (4) Clarify communication norms, feedback deadlines, and meeting rhythm. (5) Leave with a short list of deliverables and a date for the next meeting, then send a confirmation email and action tracker within 24 hours.
Bottom line: treat the first meeting as a professional project kick-off—curious, respectful, structured, and outcomes-focused. The checklists, templates, and scripts below will help you start strong.
📖 Full Length (Click to collapse)
The Best of Beginnings: The First Formal Meeting with Your Supervisor
How to prepare, what to ask, and how to turn a good first meeting into a great working relationship
Your supervisor (also called a dissertation mentor, advisor, or committee chair) is your closest collaborator during the thesis journey. Whether you chose each other or were matched by topic, the first formal meeting functions as a project kick-off: you align on vision, process, and expectations and leave with concrete next steps. Below is a pragmatic, field-agnostic guide to help you plan, conduct, and follow up on that meeting like a professional researcher.
1) Prepare like a project manager (before the meeting)
- Study your supervisor’s work: skim 2–3 recent publications (ideally one closely aligned with your topic). Note recurring methods, theoretical lenses, and preferred venues. Identify overlap and divergence with your interests—this informs sharper questions.
-
Draft a 1–2 page concept note:
- Working title & 90-second pitch: what problem, why it matters, what you propose.
- Background: 5–8 key references anchoring the gap.
- Research question(s)/hypotheses: specific and testable/answerable.
- Methods & data: design, sample/site, instruments, analysis plan; feasibility constraints.
- Timeline: high-level Gantt (semesters/months) with major milestones.
- Risks: top 3 uncertainties + mitigation ideas.
- Assemble a short dossier: CV (1 page), transcript (if relevant), any prior proposals/papers, portfolio of skills (e.g., coding, lab techniques, languages).
- Prepare an agenda with questions: see section 3 for a comprehensive list; prioritize 6–8 items.
- Book logistics: Confirm time, modality (in-person/online), room or link, and duration (45–60 min is ideal). Bring printed copies or a shareable PDF.
2) Suggested agenda (60 minutes)
| Segment | Time | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Rapport & introductions | 5 min | Brief background & interests; align expectations for the meeting |
| Student pitch | 8–10 min | Present the concept note & 90-second overview |
| Supervisor feedback | 15–20 min | Clarify scope, feasibility, theoretical fit, methods |
| Process & logistics | 15 min | Meetings, feedback, authorship, resources, ethics/data |
| Next steps & commitments | 8–10 min | Define deliverables, deadlines, and next meeting date |
3) Smart questions to ask (pick what’s relevant)
- Scope & contribution: Does the question feel appropriately narrow? What would count as a meaningful contribution in this field? Are there literatures I’m missing?
- Methodological fit: Are my proposed methods appropriate? What design alternatives should I consider? Any “must-read” methodological texts or exemplars?
- Feasibility & risks: What are the biggest risks (access, data quality, equipment, timelines), and how would you mitigate them?
- Resources: Which labs, archives, datasets, or software should I secure access to now? Any internal funds or training I should apply for?
- Supervision style: How often shall we meet? How quickly do you typically return feedback? Do you prefer tracked changes, annotated PDFs, or printed drafts? What makes a productive meeting for you?
- Feedback culture: How candid and detailed should I expect your comments to be? How should I respond to or resolve conflicting feedback from committee members?
- Authorship & dissemination: If publishable, how do you view authorship order and responsibilities? Preferred venues (journals/conferences)? Preprints?
- Ethics & integrity: Do I need IRB/ethics approval? Data management plan (DMP), preregistration, or reproducibility standards to follow?
- Milestones: What are sensible checkpoints for the next 2–3 months? What would you like to see at each?
4) Bring clarity tools (they impress and reduce friction)
5) Discuss the “operating agreement” explicitly
Prevent misunderstandings by agreeing on norms from day one.
| Topic | Decide | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Meetings | Cadence, length, agenda policy | Fortnightly, 45–60 min, agenda sent 24 hours prior |
| Feedback turnaround | Typical days for drafts | 7–10 business days for ≤20 pages; longer by agreement |
| Draft format | Preferred medium/markup | Word with tracked changes + margin comments |
| Authorship | Principles & thresholds | ICMJE/discipline standard; discuss per manuscript |
| Data & code | Storage, backup, sharing | Encrypted folder; weekly backup; Git repo for code |
| Ethics | Approvals & training | IRB submission by <date>; complete training modules |
| Boundaries | Comms hours, response expectations | Email weekday hours; 48-hour reply norm; urgent = phone |
6) Conduct the meeting with poise
- Frame, don’t defend: Present your ideas confidently, then invite critique (“I’m particularly uncertain about X and Y”). This signals maturity and speeds refinement.
- Listen actively: Paraphrase key feedback to confirm understanding (“So you’re suggesting I narrow to… and compare against…”).
- Negotiate scope, not standards: Be flexible on topic boundaries; seek clarity on quality thresholds that are non-negotiable.
- Note decisions visibly: Jot actions, owners, and dates; ask permission to summarize decisions at the end.
7) Leave with deliverables (and dates)
Convert discussion into a short plan for the next 2–6 weeks. Example:
- Revise research questions (≤1 page) by March 5.
- Read three suggested papers; send 200-word syntheses by March 12.
- Draft methods section outline (2 pages) by March 19.
- Book IRB consultation; prepare pre-application checklist by March 22.
- Next meeting: March 26, 10:00.
8) Follow-up within 24 hours
Send a concise recap email capturing agreements and actions. Template:
Subject: Thank you & next steps — First meeting (2 Mar)
Dear Dr [Surname],
Thank you for today’s meeting. Here is my understanding of key decisions and next steps:
- Focus: Narrow to [scope]; compare with [framework/method].
- Readings: [1], [2], [3] — send notes by 12 Mar.
- Deliverables: RQs revision (5 Mar); methods outline (19 Mar); IRB pre-check (22 Mar).
- Logistics: Fortnightly meetings; 7–10 day feedback window; draft format = Word w/ tracked changes.
Please let me know if I’ve missed anything. Best wishes,
[Your Name]
9) Build an action tracker (living document)
| Item | Owner | Due | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revise RQs | You | 5 Mar | In progress | Integrate suggestion on narrowing population |
| Read X, Y, Z | You | 12 Mar | Not started | Prepare 200-word syntheses |
| Methods outline | You | 19 Mar | Not started | Include sampling strategy options |
10) Common pitfalls—and how to avoid them
| Pitfall | Why it hurts | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Over-planning your thesis on day one | Locks you into fragile assumptions | Seek direction, not detail; plan the next 2–6 weeks concretely |
| Arriving with no written material | Makes feedback vague | Bring a 1–2 page concept note and a short timeline |
| Not discussing logistics | Leads to slow feedback and mismatched expectations | Ask about cadence, format, turnaround, escalation |
| Defensive reactions to critique | Closes doors to collaboration | Reframe critique as co-design; paraphrase and probe |
| No follow-up | Decisions evaporate; momentum stalls | Send a recap email and update a shared tracker within 24 hours |
11) Early discussions that save pain later
- Authorship & IP: If your work may lead to publications, prototypes, or datasets, discuss rights and order now; follow your department’s or journal’s norms.
- Ethics & data: Determine if you need ethical clearance, data protection approvals (e.g., GDPR), consent forms, and a data management plan.
- Training & skills: Identify courses or workshops (methods, statistics, programming, academic writing) and schedule them early.
- Wellbeing & boundaries: Clarify working hours, preferred communication channels, and crisis procedures; your health matters as much as your results.
12) Example 6-month macro-timeline (adapt to your degree length)
| Month | Focus | Milestones |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Framing | Finalize RQs; literature map; methods choice; ethics pre-check |
| 2 | Design | IRB/ethics application; pilot instruments; preregister (if applicable) |
| 3–4 | Data | Recruit/collect; weekly data quality checks; mid-term review |
| 5 | Analysis | Pre-analysis plan review; run analyses; robustness checks |
| 6 | Writing | Draft results & discussion; submit chapter to supervisor; plan dissemination |
13) Email scripts for tricky but common moments
Rescheduling professionally:
Dear Dr [Surname], a brief note to ask if we could move Friday’s meeting to next week. I’d like to incorporate [new dataset/feedback] so we can discuss a fuller draft. I’m available [slots]. Thank you for your flexibility.
Chasing overdue feedback (polite nudge):
Dear Dr [Surname], I hope you’re well. I’m checking in on the [chapter/draft] I sent on [date]. If you expect to need more time, I can adjust my timeline; a rough estimate would help me plan. Many thanks.
14) What to bring to the meeting (print or digital)
- Concept note (2 copies)
- CV (short), skills profile, relevant prior work
- Reading list (1 page)
- Timeline and risk register
- List of questions (prioritized)
- Laptop/notebook; calendar to set the next meeting
15) Mindset: collaborative, curious, and respectful
16) Quick checklist (print this)
- [ ] I read 2–3 of my supervisor’s recent papers and noted alignment/divergence.
- [ ] I prepared a 1–2 page concept note + 90-second pitch.
- [ ] I drafted a high-level timeline and identified top risks.
- [ ] I wrote an agenda and prioritized questions.
- [ ] I planned to discuss logistics: meetings, feedback, authorship, ethics, data.
- [ ] I have a recap email template ready for post-meeting follow-up.
Conclusion: begin as you mean to go on
Strong supervision relationships are built on clarity, cadence, and care. Your first formal meeting is your chance to establish all three. Come prepared with ideas and humility; leave with decisions and dates. Then follow up in writing, deliver what you promised, and keep the cycle going. If you start like a collaborator—organized, respectful, and eager to learn—you’ll set yourself up for a research journey that is not only successful, but also enjoyable.
