Prepare a research supervision note that leads to decisions
Turn progress, inspectable outputs and unresolved dependencies into a focused supervision agenda, using a fictional decision ledger and follow-up checks.
About 5 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Before a supervision meeting, turn a list of activities into a short account of what changed, what evidence you can show and which decisions need discussion. The note should help your supervisor understand the current state of the project without having to reconstruct it from several attachments.
Use any required institutional form or meeting-record system. This guide offers a planning approach, not a replacement for formal progress reviews, local supervision rules or the researcher’s responsibility for their work.
Start from the last agreed actions
Look at the previous meeting record and compare each action with what actually happened. Separate completed work from work still in progress. If an action changed, explain the change rather than quietly substituting a different task.
The University of Reading’s supervision guidance recommends preparing progress, problems and next steps, and asking specific questions you have already tried to resolve. It also stresses agreeing how work will be shared and allowing time for feedback. Check those arrangements before sending a large chapter shortly before a meeting.
A useful note identifies the item or file your supervisor should inspect. “Worked on the literature review” describes effort. “Compared the definitions in the three studies listed in the attached matrix; two use a narrower population than my proposed question” explains a change that can be discussed.
Use a small progress-to-decision ledger
The following project, file labels and work details are wholly fictional teaching material. They do not describe a real student, supervisor or study.
Imagine a student planning a dissertation on access to evening learning spaces. The previous meeting agreed that the student would compare study definitions, prepare a chapter outline and bring a feasible question for discussion. A vague update reads:
I read more papers and started the chapter. Some definitions are confusing. Please advise on the next steps.
An evidence-led note makes the uncertainty inspectable:
| Previous action | Current state and evidence | Decision or next step |
|---|---|---|
| Compare the studies’ definitions | A working matrix records each study’s own definition; two definitions count online access, while the proposed project currently concerns physical rooms only | Ask whether the review should compare both meanings explicitly or narrow the review scope; bring a reasoned preference, not just a request to choose for you |
| Prepare a chapter outline | An outline file identifies the purpose and intended evidence for each section; the comparison section still lacks a clear role | Ask whether that section should compare definitions or describe institutional settings; show the two alternative functions |
| Bring a feasible question | One draft question requires usage records whose availability is unconfirmed | First establish what records can legitimately be accessed; do not present the question as settled or begin unauthorised collection |
The ledger does not disguise the incomplete work. It distinguishes a finished comparison aid, an unresolved structural decision and a feasibility dependency. Those states need different kinds of discussion.
Keep the evidence proportionate. The supervisor may need one marked extract or a small matrix to understand a question, not every file created since the last meeting. Label a rough draft as a rough draft and point to the part on which you want feedback.
Bring your current reasoning
For each important question, add the options you have considered and your present view. You might write: “I favour separating the two meanings because combining them would hide a difference in what the studies measured. I need to check whether that makes the chapter’s scope too broad.”
This gives the supervisor something to test. It also prevents a general request for reassurance from consuming the time needed for a specific decision. Where a question requires specialist or institutional permission, identify that dependency instead of assuming a meeting note grants approval.
Give the agenda an order
The University of Melbourne’s meeting guidance recommends sending an agenda, recognising that supervisors may have additional priorities, and reviewing notes and unresolved issues afterwards.
Place the decisions that block useful next work early. Let your supervisor know in advance if you need to discuss a substantial change in research direction. Include other matters that need attention, but avoid treating every minor wording question as equally urgent.
For the fictional project, access feasibility belongs before detailed polishing of the question. A meeting that improves the wording while leaving the evidence source unresolved has not settled the central problem.
Close with an agreed record
During the meeting, distinguish a suggestion from an agreed action and ask when the distinction is unclear. Afterwards, record the actions, responsibilities, intended outputs and agreed timing in the required place. Confirm your understanding where needed; do not write that a supervisor approved an approach merely because it appeared on your agenda.
Use the next note to revisit that record. The result is continuity between meetings: what you planned, what you produced, what remains uncertain and what you will do next.
If the problem is organising a substantive draft, use the reverse-outline guide before sending it. If the question depends on comparing studies, use the source-notes guide to keep each study’s claims and limits attached to its identity.
