The role of the supervisor is indispensable for doctoral studies and its basic framework is described in the Benchmark for Supervisors at Charles University, see Rector's measure no. 33/2025.

As the feedback of both the supervisors and the doctoral candidates shows, for the overall quality of supervision, initial clarification of principles of supervision and detailed parameters of future collaboration on dissertation project is crucial for the overall quality of supervision. In accordance with Art. 4 (4) of the the Benchmark for Supervisors at Charles University, the following list outlines key propositions that should be addressed for this purpose during initial joint meetings (ideally prior to the candidate’s admission to doctoral study).

At the outset of their collaboration, the supervisor and the doctoral candidate should discuss the following:

1. The expected form of supervisory support in fulfilling study obligations (e.g. data collection, analysis, publication activity, participation in conferences).

2. The involvement of an advisor in addressing specific aspects of the dissertation project.

3. The organisation of consultations in relation to study obligations (format, initiation, frequency, duration, etc.).

4. The determination of whether, and in what manner, the supervisor will participate as a co-author of planned research outputs, where this can be anticipated at this stage. Where relevant, the identification of any significant intellectual property considerations arising in connection with the dissertation research that require attention.

5. The possibility of the doctoral candidate’s participation in a broader research project, either within or beyond the scope of the dissertation topic (including clarification of related or potentially conflicting aspects).

6. The suitability of pursuing a cotutelle or other forms of international collaboration.

7. The assessment of whether specific skills need to be developed (e.g. methods, tools, software, or soft skills training) that are necessary for the fulfilment of study requirements but are not part of the core curriculum of the given study programme, including the manner and timetable for acquiring such skills.

8. Teaching activities as part of fulfilling study obligations. Where such activities are expected, the form they will take and the role of the supervisor in this area should be specified.

9. Mobility: clarification of expectations regarding the fulfilment of mobility requirements by both the doctoral candidate and the supervisor, including consideration of alternative forms where needed. Identification of suitable funding sources to support mobility-related and associated activities (e.g. conference participation).

10. The identification of specific journals (or categories of journals) suitable for meeting publication requirements within the study programme, where this can be determined at this stage.

11. The form of support and/or the supervisor’s involvement in facilitating the doctoral candidate’s engagement in both national and international networking.

12. The doctoral candidate’s expectations of the study programme with regard to their prospective career in the academic or non-academic sector (e.g. the existence of an employer with whom it would be appropriate or possible to collaborate from the outset of the programme).

* It is acceptable if not all points can be fully addressed during the initial meetings. What is important is that they are carefully considered and discussed during meetings between the supervisor and the doctoral candidate.

It is also acceptable (and advisable) to revise these expectations over the course of the study (e.g. in response to updates to the Individual Study Plan).