Does the ‘Educational Alliance’ conceptualize the student - supervisor relationship when conducting a master thesis in medicine? An interview study

BACKGROUND: Completing a master thesis (MT) is mandatory in many undergraduate curricula in medicine but a specific educational framework to guide the supervisor-student relationship during the MT has not been published. This could be helpful to facilitate the MT process and to more effectively reach the learning objectives related to science education in medicine. An attractive model for this purpose is the ‘Educational Alliance’ (EA), which focusses on the three components ‘clarity and agreement on (a) goals, (b) tasks and (c) relationship & roles’. This study investigated factors that can either facilitate or hinder the process of MTs, and related these to the components of the EA. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 20 students and – separately – with their 20 corresponding supervisors, after the MT had been accepted. The interviews included open questions on factors facilitating or hindering the success of the MT. Audio recordings of the interviews were anonymized and transcribed, and then analysed by qualitative content analysis. Also, quantitative data were gathered on satisfaction with the MT process and the supervisory quality (using Likert-type questions). RESULTS: We were able to analyse all 40 interviews, related to 20 MTs. From the transcripts, we extracted 469 comments related to the research question and categorized these into the four main categories (a) ‘Preparation’, (b) ‘Process’, (c) ‘Atmosphere’, (d) ‘Value of the MT’. Interviewees highlighted the importance of a careful preparation phase, clear expectations, a clear research plan, thorough and timely feedback, mutual agreement on timelines, and a positive working atmosphere. Each of these factors could be brought in line with the three components of the EA framework: agreement and clarity of goals, tasks, relationships & roles. Satisfaction with the MT process was rated 8.75 ± 1.22 SD (of 10) points by supervisors, and 7.80 ± 1.61 SD points by students, while supervision quality was rated + 1.51 ± 0.63 SD (scale from − 2 to + 2) by supervisors, and + 1.26 ± 0.93 SD by students. CONCLUSION: We propose the EA framework as a useful guidance for students, supervisors, and the university towards conducting successful MTs in medicine. Based on the findings, we provide specific recommendations for students, supervisors, and university. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04593-7.