BU Research Blog

Some people in academia (and many outside it) don’t appreciate the importance of PhD supervision .  An academic supervising PhD students is not merely for the educational purposes, or in other words, for the benefits of the postgraduate student.  The value of postgraduate supervision lies in pushing the boundaries of knowledge, about testing new ideas, new approaches or even new methods.

Interestingly, enough it means that PhD supervision for an academic is also about developing their own ideas, expanding one’s CV, and developing one’s career.  Whilst for the university it is also for the wider benefit of research for the wider society.  The latter means that PhD students help improve the REF (Research Excellence Framework) scores for a university, through metrics such as number and proportion of PhD completions, but also through papers based on PhD research co-authored with staff.  It always amazes me how some outsider regard PhD supervision as simply more of the same, i.e. not that different from supervising an undergraduate student.

Looking at my ow CV, some of my best papers have been co-written with PhD students, including my most cited paper on SCOPUS [1]. Moreover, as the graph of my h-index [checked SCOPUS for May 19^th 2025] shows four of my top eight highest cited papers were co-authored with postgraduate students [1-4].  Papers that would not have been written without the postgraduate student conducting knowledge-advancing research!

Not surprisingly, three of the four former PhD students who co-authored these highly-cited papers are now in academic positions across the UK (the fourth one has retired).  These four highlighted papers are not just looking good on my CV, they are also highly ranked within their respective journals.  The first paper [1] is the 28^th most cited paper in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, an impressive 28^th position out of 12,762 articles ever published by this international journal.  Similarly, the paper ‘Women’s autonomy in decision-making for health care: Demographic study in Nepal’ [2] is the 10^th most cited paper in Reproductive Health, whilst ‘ To tell or not to tell: Barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk’ [3] is the 20^th most article in Clinical Genetics.  Last, but not least, ‘Risk, Theory, Social & Medical Models: critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care’ [4] is the 17^th most cited article (out of 3,910) in the international journal Midwifery.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

References:

1. Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen E., Porter, M., Simkhada, P. (2008) Factors affecting the utilisation of antenatal care in developing countries: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of Advanced Nursing 61(3): 244-260.
2. Acharya, D.R., Bell, J., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E, Regmi, P.R. (2010) Women’s autonomy in decision-making for health care: Demographic study in Nepal. Reproductive Health 9(15) reproductive-health-journal.com/content/pdf/1742-4755-7-15.pdf
3. Forrest, K., Simpson, S., Wilson, B.J., van Teijlingen E, McKee L, Haites, N., Matthews E. (2003) To tell or not to tell: Barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk,Clinical Genetics, 64: 317-26.
4. MacKenzie Bryers H., van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Risk, Theory, Social & Medical Models: critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care, Midwifery 26(5): 488-496.