PhD Supervisor Meeting Agenda Template: Decisions, Blockers, and Next Actions

A good PhD supervisor meeting agenda helps you leave with decisions you can act on. It gives your supervisor enough context to respond, identifies where you need advice, and turns the discussion into a short record of agreed next steps.

The agenda does not need to summarize your entire doctorate. Focus it on the work since the last meeting, the questions that matter now, and the next useful checkpoint. Your department's supervision requirements and agreed working arrangements take precedence over this general template.

Copy this supervision meeting agenda

Meeting date and participants:
Research stage or current question:
Links to the specific materials for this meeting:

1. Since the last meeting
- Actions completed:
- Useful results or changes in understanding:
- Actions still open, with a reason:

2. Decisions requested
- Decision A:
  Evidence or options:
  My recommendation and why:
  What this decision unblocks:
- Decision B:
  Evidence or options:
  My recommendation and why:
  What this decision unblocks:

3. Blockers and support needed
- Blocker:
- What I have tried:
- Input or support requested:

4. Next actions
- Action / owner / target date / evidence of completion:

5. Next meeting
- Proposed date:
- Material to send in advance:
- What we expect to be ready:

Send the agenda and the relevant material with the lead time you have agreed with your supervisor. If there is no agreement yet, ask what preparation window and format work for them. Sending more pages at the last minute is unlikely to make the discussion more focused.

Bring evidence that supports the decision

“Discuss my methods chapter” gives the meeting a topic, but little direction. A more actionable request is: “Choose between these two sampling approaches so I can finalize the recruitment plan.” Attach a short comparison and the section where the choice matters.

For each important decision, bring three things: the question, the evidence you have, and your current recommendation. You can be uncertain and still make a recommendation. Explain the uncertainty instead of hiding it behind a long status report.

Use precise references to material: a named draft, a section heading, a figure, or a small results table. Avoid requiring your supervisor to search several documents to understand the question.

Worked example: a methods-stage meeting

The following is fictional and illustrates meeting preparation rather than research-method advice.

Keep ethical, data-protection, and institutional approvals in their proper process. A discussion with a supervisor does not itself replace formal approval where your institution requires it.

Notice that each item asks for a different kind of help. Some need a decision, some need feedback, and some need a referral or clarification. Labeling the request makes it easier to use the meeting time well.

Make blockers specific enough to resolve

A blocker is useful when another person can understand the missing condition. “I am behind” describes a situation. “I cannot finish the pilot outline until we agree which participant group it addresses” identifies a decision.

Record what you tried, what remains uncertain, and the effect on the next milestone. If the issue needs specialist advice beyond your supervisor, agree who will find the right person or process.

Leave room for exploratory discussion too. Research questions do not always become a tidy task by the end of one meeting. Record an unresolved question as unresolved, with the evidence needed to return to it.

Close with a shared action record

Reserve the last part of the meeting to read back the decisions and next actions. Distinguish “agreed,” “suggested,” and “still to decide.” That prevents a possible direction from becoming an assumed commitment.

A follow-up record might look like this:

Agreed: Develop pilot option B for the next discussion.
Student: Send a revised pilot outline by the agreed date.
Supervisor: Point to the relevant institutional guidance.
Still open: Final recruitment route, pending that guidance.
Next meeting: Review the outline and unresolved route.

Send or share the record using your agreed channel and invite corrections. Each action needs an owner and a recognizable output. “Think about the chapter” is difficult to close; “bring a revised outline with two alternatives” is easier to review.

Keep the agenda beside the work in SelfManager

In SelfManager.ai, create a dated table for the meeting. Put the agenda and decisions in notes, attach appropriate supporting documents, and turn agreed follow-ups into tasks with deadlines. If you use task comments, keep questions beside the action they concern. Check your institution's requirements before placing confidential or restricted research material in any planning tool.

A shared table is optional. You can maintain your own preparation record without asking your supervisor to adopt another app. If you share it, give access only to the people who should see its contents.

Use the PhD and researcher planner guide for the broader planning system. Use the dissertation progress tracker for chapter status. This agenda serves a narrower purpose: making the next supervision conversation useful and preserving what it actually decided.

What if the meeting produces no clear decision?

Record the options discussed, what is missing, and who will obtain it. A useful meeting can end with a better-defined question. The next action should make that question easier to answer, rather than inventing certainty the discussion did not reach.