The relation between PhD students and their advisors: how to make it work and how to manage upcoming problems

Aims and rationale: The aim is to describe the experience of PhD supervision from the perspective of advisors and PhD students. PhD supervision is mostly done in a personal style that varies between advisors. For an outside observer it may seem that this works quite well. Can it be done better? The attrition rates and number of websites discussing how to survive your PhD suggests that there might be room for further improvement. Methods: Nine advisors from several university institutions in general practice in UK and Sweden and seven PhD students were interviewed. Principal findings: Three main themes were identified: 1) The good example: Eight house keeping rules were identified to facilitate a good relation between advisors and students. 2) Disagreements: Five areas for potential problems were identified and how these should be managed. 3) Potential consequences of a global trend in changing PhD programs from the former UK model (allowing more student initiative and "finding their way") to the US model (emphasizing low attrition rates and completion in time). Relevance to policy, research and/or practice needs: PhD students in general practice are often older than other PhD students and often do their PhD part time. They rarely fit into the standard PhD frame work made up by the University. This makes it important to clarify what can be done to facilitate research education in general practice