Can Two Supervisors Be from Different Subject Areas?

Introduction

PhD research in India is increasingly moving beyond the boundaries of traditional disciplines. Complex societal challenges, rapid technological advancements, and evolving academic landscapes demand research that cannot be confined to a single subject. This has made interdisciplinary studies central to modern doctoral research. Against this background, an important question arises: can two supervisors of a PhD student belong to different subject areas?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has laid down specific regulations on PhD supervision, including eligibility, guide–student ratio, and rules for co-guidance. These rules provide space for interdisciplinary supervision, but the scope and limits vary across institutions. This blog analyses the UGC framework and Indian higher education practices regarding supervisors from different subject areas.

UGC Perspective on Interdisciplinary Supervision

The UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of PhD Degree) Regulations, 2022 emphasise the importance of interdisciplinary research. Regulation 10 allows co-supervisors to be appointed, especially in cases where the research crosses departmental or subject boundaries.

The rationale is clear: no single faculty member can be an expert in every dimension of an interdisciplinary project. By allowing supervisors from different subject areas, UGC promotes academic collaboration, enhances the quality of guidance, and strengthens the research outcomes.

When Are Supervisors from Different Subjects Allowed?

Supervisors from different subject areas are usually allowed in cases where:

1. Research spans two disciplines – for example, a PhD on “Machine Learning Applications in Public Health” may require supervision from both Computer Science and Public Health experts.
2. Specialised expertise is required – if a study involves legal aspects of biotechnology, a Law faculty and a Biotechnology faculty may co-supervise.
3. Collaborative institutions are involved – in some cases, supervisors from two universities or departments may be appointed to support multi-institutional research.

The key principle is that the main supervisor should belong to the subject in which the degree is formally registered, while the co-supervisor may represent a different but relevant subject.

Institutional Autonomy in Implementation

Although UGC provides broad guidelines, implementation differs across universities. Central universities, IITs, and IISERs generally encourage cross-disciplinary co-guidance, especially in research-intensive programmes. Private and state universities may have more rigid internal rules, sometimes restricting co-supervisors to the same faculty cluster.

For example:

• IITs and IISc: actively promote dual supervisors across engineering, sciences, and humanities.
• Traditional state universities: often limit co-supervisors within the same faculty board, though exceptions are made in interdisciplinary topics.
• Private universities: follow UGC rules but may require approval from the Research Advisory Committee before assigning co-supervisors from different subject areas.

Advantages of Supervisors from Different Disciplines

Having supervisors from different subjects offers clear academic benefits:

1. Broader perspective – Students benefit from insights rooted in two knowledge traditions.
2. Enhanced rigour – One supervisor ensures discipline-specific methodology, while the other ensures relevance across fields.
3. Better networking – Students gain access to two professional networks, which helps in conferences, publications, and career opportunities.
4. Problem-solving edge – Complex problems, such as climate change or AI ethics, require solutions that merge science, technology, and social perspectives.

Challenges in Cross-Disciplinary Supervision

Despite its advantages, this model also faces challenges:

1. Administrative hurdles – Universities may have difficulty mapping research credits and workload across departments.
2. Conflicting guidance – Supervisors from different subjects may differ in methodology or academic expectations.
3. Assessment issues – Examiners may struggle to evaluate a thesis that does not fit neatly within one discipline.
4. Recognition concerns – API score calculations and NAAC records may complicate recognition of cross-disciplinary guidance.

These challenges underline the need for clear rules and better institutional frameworks to support interdisciplinary supervision.

Examples from Indian Academia

Several Indian universities already provide successful examples of supervisors from different disciplines working together:

• Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU): Interdisciplinary research centres often appoint faculty from Political Science and International Studies as co-supervisors on overlapping topics.
• IITs: Projects on biomedical engineering are co-supervised by faculty from Electrical Engineering and Biotechnology.
• TISS Mumbai: Social science research often requires co-supervisors from Sociology and Economics.

These cases show that cross-disciplinary supervision is not just permitted but actively encouraged in research-intensive institutions.

International Comparison

Globally, cross-disciplinary supervision is becoming a norm. In the UK and Australia, doctoral students in interdisciplinary programmes are usually required to have supervisors from at least two different academic areas. In the United States, co-supervision often extends across schools and faculties, such as a law professor co-guiding a PhD in environmental science.

India, though cautious in its approach, is gradually moving toward this model, aligning with international best practices.

Role of Research Advisory Committees

Under the UGC’s 2022 regulations, each PhD scholar must have a Research Advisory Committee (RAC). This body reviews progress, ensures interdisciplinary balance, and mediates between supervisors if conflicts arise. When supervisors come from different subject areas, the RAC plays a vital role in harmonising expectations and maintaining coherence in the research process.

Conclusion

Yes, two supervisors can be from different subject areas in a PhD, provided the research requires interdisciplinary input and the university’s regulations permit it. The UGC recognises the growing importance of such arrangements, especially in cutting-edge and socially relevant topics. However, universities retain autonomy in implementation, and the success of such supervision depends on institutional support, clarity of roles, and effective coordination between supervisors.

For Indian PhD scholars, interdisciplinary supervision offers rich opportunities, but it also demands adaptability and a readiness to engage with multiple academic traditions. In the long run, this practice strengthens the quality and relevance of doctoral research in India, positioning scholars to contribute meaningfully to global academic and societal challenges.