What should I do when my two supervisors disagree on how to design my interdisciplinary program, especially when one wants me to be physically present in their department and the other has a different plan, and one even offered me an RA position?
Imagine you’re a junior graduate student in the spring of 2025, majoring in Environmental Engineering. Your research idea—combining water quality modeling with social science policy analysis—has caught the eye of two faculty members: Dr. Lee from the Engineering Department and Professor Martinez from the Sociology Department. Dr. Lee wants you to spend most of your time on campus, working in the hydrology lab, while Professor Martinez prefers a more flexible schedule, with occasional visits to the campus to meet with her students and to attend seminars. Dr. Lee even offered you a research assistant (RA) position, which would give you a stipend and a formal place in the lab’s annual budget. Professor Martinez, however, is hesitant to commit to the same structure because her department’s policies on interdisciplinary work are still evolving. Now you’re staring at a wall of conflicting expectations. How do you navigate this terrain, and what part of the puzzle is really yours to solve?
The Reality Check: Understanding the Scope of Your Role
When the first email from Dr. Lee arrives, promising an RA slot and a stipend, you might feel the excitement of a clear path. But then Professor Martinez’s reply, full of polite concerns about departmental policy, reminds you that the picture is more complicated. At this point, the first question you should ask yourself is: What does the university actually expect from me, and what is my responsibility in resolving these differences? The answer is usually a mix of institutional policy, the nature of your degree program, and your own agency as a student.
In most universities, the supervisor who offers the RA position typically becomes the primary mentor. That person is responsible for ensuring you meet the program’s academic requirements, securing funding, and providing regular supervision. The second supervisor’s role is often advisory, offering subject‑matter expertise and broader perspective. When the two supervisors disagree, it’s common for the primary supervisor to act as the mediator. However, this does not absolve you of the need to communicate, clarify expectations, and, when necessary, seek help from higher‑level faculty or administrative offices.
Think of it like this: you’re the captain of a ship with two co‑captains who want to chart slightly different courses. You’re not expected to navigate the seas alone, but you do need to keep the wheel steady, listen to both sides, and decide which route will get you safely to port.
Mapping the Conflict: What’s Really at Stake?
Before you can reconcile differing perspectives, you must identify the concrete points of disagreement. In our example, the main issues are:
- Physical Presence – Dr. Lee wants daily lab access; Professor Martinez wants a flexible schedule.
- Funding and Budget Allocation – The RA stipend is tied to the Engineering Department’s budget; the Sociology Department’s budget does not cover RA positions in the same way.
- Coursework and Credit Requirements – Engineering students must complete certain lab courses; sociology students may have different elective requirements.
- Publication and Authorship Policies – Each department has its own guidelines for authorship order and data ownership.
When you list these points, you’ll see that they’re not just abstract disagreements; they are concrete institutional requirements that affect your progress, stipend, and future career prospects. By mapping them out, you can begin to see which items are negotiable and which are fixed by policy.
Building a Bridge: Practical Steps to Mediate the Divide
Now that you know what’s at stake, you can start acting as the bridge between the two supervisors. Here are concrete steps you can take, illustrated with a short story from a student named Maya.
Maya was a second‑year PhD student in Computer Science. Her project required both algorithmic theory and user‑experience research. Her supervisor, Dr. Patel, wanted her to stay on campus for the entire year, while her co‑supervisor, Professor Chen, preferred remote collaboration because of her own teaching load. Maya scheduled a joint meeting with both professors. She began by acknowledging their expertise:
“Dr. Patel, your lab’s resources are crucial for the computational experiments. Professor Chen, your insights on user studies are invaluable. I want to find a way that lets me use both without compromising either department’s expectations.”
During the meeting, Maya proposed a hybrid schedule: two weeks on campus for experiments, followed by a month of remote data analysis and user interviews. She also suggested a shared progress report that would satisfy both departments’ milestone requirements. Both supervisors agreed to the plan after seeing how it aligned with their goals.
Here’s a template you can adapt:
- Schedule a joint meeting with both supervisors, preferably in person or via video call.
- Begin with a brief recap of each supervisor’s expectations and how they align with your research goals.
- Present a clear, written proposal that addresses each point of conflict—physical presence, funding, coursework, and authorship.
- Invite feedback and be prepared to adjust your proposal on the spot.
- Document the agreed plan in an email or formal memorandum and send it to both supervisors and the department chair, if appropriate.
Remember, the goal is not to “win” an argument but to create a workable plan that satisfies institutional rules and respects both mentors’ expertise.
The RA Offer: How It Changes the Equation
When one supervisor offers an RA position, it often signals a commitment to a formal supervisory relationship. That commitment brings advantages and constraints:
- Financial Stability – The RA stipend covers tuition, health insurance, and living expenses.
- Formal Reporting – You’ll have to submit progress reports to the department’s graduate office.
- Time Allocation – The RA contract usually specifies a minimum number of hours per week, often 20–25.
However, the RA offer can also create a power imbalance. If Dr. Lee’s department has a rigid policy on RA hours, you might feel pressured to prioritize engineering tasks over sociological ones. If Professor Martinez’s department has no formal RA structure, you might be left to negotiate a stipend or teaching assistant role that doesn’t match the engineering stipend.
To navigate this, ask yourself:
- Can I negotiate a split‑time RA arrangement that satisfies both departments?
- Will the RA contract allow me to fulfill the sociology coursework or research requirements?
- Is there a possibility of a joint stipend or a supplemental grant that covers both departments’ expectations?
In Maya’s case, she negotiated a “dual‑department RA” with a stipend split proportionally between the two departments. She also secured a small grant from the university’s interdisciplinary research office to cover additional travel and conference expenses. This arrangement gave her the financial security of an RA while maintaining flexibility.
Wait, What About the Formalities? Legal, Institutional, and Funding Hurdles
Even if you and your supervisors can agree on a hybrid schedule, several institutional hoops may still be blocking you. These include:
| Issue | Typical Constraint | Possible Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Departmental Budget Limits | Only one department can fund the RA stipend. | Apply for a joint interdisciplinary grant or a university fellowship. |
| Coursework Requirements | Each department has its own core courses. | Take a cross‑listing or dual‑major credit. |
| Authorship Policies | Different expectations for authorship order. | Agree on authorship guidelines in writing before publication. |
| Data Ownership | Conflicting claims on data use. | Draft a data‑sharing agreement that specifies ownership and usage rights. |
In the case of a student named Omar, who was working on a bioinformatics project that involved both biology and statistics, the institutional policy required that any data collected in the biology lab be owned by the biology department. Omar’s solution was to draft a data‑sharing agreement that allowed the statistics department to use the data for analysis but required that any publications list the biology department first. Both supervisors signed the agreement, and the project proceeded without legal disputes.
The Final Push: Getting the Green Light and Moving Forward
Once you have a draft plan and a clear understanding of institutional constraints, the next step is to formalize everything. This involves:
- Submitting a written proposal to the graduate committee or department chair.
- Securing written confirmation from both supervisors on the agreed schedule, stipend, and responsibilities.
- Registering any required courses or lab access permissions.
- Setting up a regular check‑in schedule (e.g., monthly joint meetings).
When the paperwork is in place, you can start focusing on your research. Keep a journal of progress, noting any new conflicts or changes in expectations. If a new disagreement arises, treat it the same way you treated the first: map the issue, propose a solution, and involve both supervisors. By staying proactive, you’ll avoid the “sudden crisis” moments that many students dread.
For example, after completing the first semester, Maya found that the remote user‑experience component was taking longer than expected. She promptly sent a brief update to both supervisors, proposing an additional week of on‑campus data collection. Both supervisors appreciated the transparency and adjusted the schedule accordingly.
Closing Thoughts
Disagreements between supervisors are not a sign of failure; they’re a natural part of interdisciplinary work. By understanding your institutional role, mapping the conflict, acting as a mediator, navigating RA offers, dealing with formalities, and securing a formal plan, you can turn a potential roadblock into a structured pathway. Remember that your primary job is to keep the project moving forward, not to settle every philosophical debate between faculty. Keep the communication lines open, stay organized, and you’ll find that the most challenging disagreements can become valuable learning experiences. Good luck, and enjoy the journey of blending disciplines!