How novice doctoral co-supervisors promote well-being in PhD students

Some aspects of doctoral supervision are more demanding than others. One of the most pressing challenges is how to support PhD students facing well-being challenges – a concern highlighted in the UK Council for Graduate Education, (2021). This is hardly surprising, given the substantial body of research showing how common well-being challenges are among PhD students. Levecque et al. (2017) found that nearly half of all PhD students experienced stress, anxiety or other forms of psychological distress. Hazell et al. (2021b) further showed that PhD students reported higher levels of depression and anxiety compared to peers of the same age and education level. Even more alarmingly, between 20% and 35% of PhD students were considered at risk of suicide, based on a clinically validated screening tool (Hazell et al., 2021a). Recent studies also revealed that past trauma or trauma responses can shape how PhD students experience their doctoral journey (McChesney, 2024). While regional variations may be observed, the overarching pattern appears consistent. Consequently, in view of such studies, PhD student well-being has become a growing concern within doctoral supervision (Barry et al., 2018; Devine and Hunter, 2017; Wollast et al., 2023).

Traditionally, supervision has been conceptualised as a one-to-one relationship between student and main supervisor. Over time, this model has shifted towards team-based approaches, where responsibility is distributed across multiple supervisors (Khosa et al., 2024). This also implies that, in addition to the main supervisor, others may play a role in supporting the PhD student’s well-being. However, existing research underscores the key conditions that enable supervisory teams to function effectively. Wald et al. (2023), drawing on data from 120 supervisors, highlight the need to manage disagreements constructively, negotiate hierarchies consciously and foster open dialogue among team members.

As doctoral supervision has become more team-based, prior research suggests that novices often acquire supervisory competence by working alongside more experienced colleagues within the team. Through collaborative practice, they gradually grow into the role (McKenna and van Schalkwyk, 2023; Pyhältö et al., 2024; Robertson, 2017). They can develop the ability to manage different kinds of supervisory situations. Yet, this developmental process is not always straightforward. Hierarchical dynamics within supervisory teams can shape how novice co-supervisors participate and evolve. For those who are new, the learning curve can be steep, marked by both positive experiences and episodes of tension and frustration (Amundsen and McAlpine, 2011). For instance, some novices report being in a position of dependence on main supervisors, which can restrict their autonomy and learning opportunities (Almlöv and Grubbström, 2024). In such cases, the authority typically vested in the main supervisor may limit the agency and influence of the co-supervisor (Wilkin et al., 2023).

Grossman and Crowther (2015) underscore the importance of shared understanding and clearly defined roles between main and co-supervisors. Yet, a common challenge appears be the lack of clarity surrounding role boundaries. A national survey conducted across 14 Swedish universities found that nearly half of all co-supervisors perceived their role as unclear, and more than a third had never discussed their specific responsibilities within the supervisory team (Almlöv and Viberg, 2024). This ambiguity has been associated with professional insecurity and role confusion (Grossman and Crowther, 2015). In the absence of formal guidance, many novices tend to adopt a broad interpretation of their role (Amundsen and McAlpine, 2009; Turner, 2015).

The growing focus on PhD students’ well-being has been accompanied by increasing recognition of the pivotal role supervisors play (McAlpine and McKinnon, 2013; Pretorius et al., 2019; Pyhältö et al., 2012). Supervisors within the team, whether experienced or novice, are expected to foster scholarly development while also managing emotionally complex situations (Strandler et al., 2014). Although supporting student well-being is often viewed as part of the supervisory role, it can be challenging for those still finding their footing. Despite limited experience, novice supervisors are frequently drawn into emotionally demanding situations in which PhD students may be experiencing psychological distress (Leshem and Bitzer, 2024). Many report feeling unprepared to meet such demands (Almlöv and Grubbström, 2024).

Emotional challenges in doctoral education affect not only students but also supervisors. Encounters with distressed students or difficult situations can leave supervisors feeling uncertain, questioning their academic identity and ability to supervise (Carter, 2016). In response, recent literature calls for training that addresses the relational and emotional aspects of supervision (Casey et al., 2022; Hazell et al., 2025; White et al., 2024). Scholars also argue for a more holistic approach that supports early-career supervisors’ broader development (Guccione, 2024; Maritz, 2021), including attention to activities beyond formal plans and to the influence of the hidden curriculum (Elliot et al., 2020).

Yet, despite the strain these situations may cause, they serve as important catalysts for reflection, learning, and professional growth. As Halse (2011) suggests, such challenges often prompting supervisors to deepen their understanding of their role.

As doctoral supervision becomes increasingly collaborative and complex, it is important to better understand the different roles of supervisors within teams, particularly the under-researched co-supervisor (Kumar and Wald, 2024). Co-supervisors take on more or less central roles depending on their formal appointment, assigned responsibilities, position and level of experience within the team (Kumar and Wald, 2023). This study focuses on novice co-supervisors – formally appointed co-supervisors who have not yet supervised a PhD student to completion.

As team-based supervision becomes increasingly common and the global number of PhD students grows, more researchers are stepping into co-supervisory roles early in their careers. These individuals occupy a unique in-between space – still learning the craft of supervision while already carrying real responsibilities. This transitional position marks a formative stage in their academic development (Halse, 2011; Lundberg, 2025; Maritz, 2021). Unlike novice main supervisors or experienced co-supervisors, they face distinct challenges shaped by limited experience and unclear expectations. Despite being newcomers, they are frequently involved in tasks that affect PhD students’ well-being, which makes it even more important to understand their experiences and the support they need (Almlöv and Grubbström, 2024; Leshem and Bitzer, 2024).

This paper aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how novice co-supervisors perceive the emotionally charged practice. The question that guides this study is: How do novice doctoral co-supervisors promote PhD students’ well-being? This study hopes to serve as a foundation for further discussion on the institutional support and conditions that shape novice co-supervisors’ roles.

The study was conducted at two internationally ranked, research-intensive universities in Sweden, where most research is funded through external grants. Since 2006, Swedish legislation (SFS, 2006:1053) has required that every PhD student is assigned a main supervisor and at least one co-supervisor. Teams may include one or several co-supervisors, shaped by institutional norms, project demands and funding structures. Often appointed at the grant stage, supervisory teams may later expand to meet emerging needs.

At most Swedish universities, main supervisors are required to hold the title of docent (associated professor) and to complete a mandatory three-week supervision course, which also includes co-supervision. Co-supervisors, by contrast, are not formally required to complete any training, although many choose to do so voluntarily. For many academics, the role of co-supervisor serves as the initial step into doctoral supervision.

This study is grounded in symbolic interactionism, a perspective developed by Herbert Blumer (1969), which offers a valuable lens for understanding how meaning is created, negotiated and sustained in social contexts. Blumer outlines three core principles: first, that individuals act based on the meanings things hold for them; second, that these meanings emerge through social interaction; and third, that meanings are continuously revised through interpretation and reflection. Viewed through this lens, novice co-supervisors are not passive transmitters of institutional norms. Instead, they are active meaning-makers who interpret situations, respond to contextual cues, and exercise judgement shaped by their evolving understanding of the supervisory role. Through repeated interactions with students and colleagues, they co-construct shared meanings that influence how supervision is practised.

To further enrich this interpretive framework, the study also draws on Gary Alan Fine’s (2006) concept of social expertise. Fine broadens the concept of expertise beyond the technical and formal, emphasising its relational and situational dimensions. In this view, social experts are those who successfully navigate interpersonal dynamics, mentor others, and apply institutional knowledge to build trust and sustain cohesion within groups. In supervisory settings, such individuals may help resolve conflicts, shape local norms, and facilitate communication within the team. Taken together, these two theoretical perspectives provide a compelling framework for analysing novice co-supervisors.

To answer the research question, this study adopted an exploratory interpretive design based on in-depth interviews.

An invitation letter was distributed via email to co-supervisors who had completed the mandatory three-week supervision course the previous year. Of the individuals who expressed interest, 25 novice co-supervisors were selected based on the order of registration, while also ensuring some women and men within each research field. They were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time without providing a reason (Table 1). The study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Swedish Research Council (2017) and complied with the university’s checklist for mandatory ethical review. Confidentiality and anonymity were upheld throughout the research process.

Due to pandemic-related restrictions, online interviews were conducted in place of face-to-face meetings. Individual in-depth interviews were chosen as the most suitable format, especially because it is hard to read facial expressions, body language and emotions in online group settings. Further, qualitative interviews provide rich, detailed stories – also known as thick descriptions – of participants’ experiences (Denzin, 2001). The interviews explored topics such as induction, team relationships, experienced challenges and anticipated support needs. Each of the 25 interviews lasted approximately 60 min. The online format brought its own challenges and prompted reflection on how best to create a safer space. Interviews were held in participants’ homes or workplaces, so each session began with checking whether others were present. To foster a sense of trust, the interviewer also used visual cues such as nodding and offered affirming responses to maintain a supportive and attentive atmosphere.

The data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The process began with familiarisation: interviews were transcribed and note of elements that sparked analytical interest were taken. Transcription followed the recommended level of detail – at minimum, a rigorous and thorough orthographic transcript, capturing a verbatim account of all verbal utterances, and occasionally relevant non-verbal sounds such as laughing or coughing (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 88).

The analytical process continued with repeated listening and close reading of the interview data. While engaging with the material, recurring patterns related to how novice co-supervisors supported PhD students’ well-being were identified. These patterns were coded and gradually organised into clusters that formed the basis for preliminary themes and sub-themes (Table 2). Drawing on a reflexive thematic approach, we understood the themes as actively constructed through ongoing interpretation.

Throughout the study, the authors reflected on their dual roles as researchers and, in some cases, former course leaders. Although none of them taught the courses currently attended by the interviewees, their insider perspective required attentiveness to potential bias. The first author conducted and transcribed the interviews and led the initial coding. Emerging findings were discussed in research seminars, allowing for a multiplicity of views. A research diary supported this reflexive process by documenting methodological choices, interview conditions and analytical reflections. These practices contributed to the trustworthiness and transparency of the analysis.

The findings are presented through four interrelated themes, each illustrating a distinct way in which novice co-supervisors supported PhD students’ well-being within the supervisory context.

Nurturing a supportive culture is essential for PhD students’ well-being. This section explores how novice co-supervisors contributed to such a culture.

Co-supervisors engaged in the “hidden curriculum”. Through these efforts, they helped create a positive social climate, as illustrated by co-supervisor Ümit, who explained:

Ümit’s quote reflects a co-supervisory approach that seemed to foster a sense of belonging and a friendly atmosphere. His mention of “late Friday afternoons in the lab” suggests a setting where work and social time may have blended naturally. This kind of informal connection may have helped reduce stress and support well-being through inclusion and shared enjoyment.

Co-supervisor Miriban, by contrast, reflected on the challenges of cultivating a supportive research culture with PhD students during the pandemic:

Building relationships with newly admitted PhD students through online meetings proved challenging. In response, Miriban made a conscious effort to counteract social isolation by organising outdoor, in-person meetings in accordance with public health recommendations. While practical and logistical obstacles persisted, these initiatives may have helped foster a more supportive environment. By actively addressing the risks of social isolation, Miriban sought to prevent well-being challenges among PhD students.

Most novice co-supervisors worked closely with their PhD students. Helena, one of the novice co-supervisors, reflected on students’ hesitation to approach individuals in positions of greater authority, such as the main supervisor. She offered the following explanation:

Because some novice co-supervisors were perceived as less authoritative, PhD students may have felt more comfortable voicing their concerns, as illustrated by Miriban:

Miriban’s account illustrates how co-supervisors often navigated sensitive situations by respecting students’ privacy while gently encouraging them to seek further support. Even when the main supervisor was perceived as supportive, students often turned first to the co-supervisor. In some cases, co-supervisors remained in a position of concern without the authority to intervene directly, as co-supervisor Lisa explained:

Lisa’s account illustrates how co-supervisors could find themselves in emotionally challenging and ethically sensitive situations. In this case, she finally helped resolve a conflict involving another supervisory team by encouraging a PhD student to seek support. Lisa’s actions demonstrate how co-supervisors may interpret their role, build trust, and assume ethical responsibility through everyday interactions.

Co-supervisors also acted as mediators between the PhD student and others – clarifying communication, easing tensions or offering advice on how to approach specific individuals. When they identified signs of miscommunication between the student and another supervisor, they often took the initiative to intervene. Isac, one of the novice co-supervisors, was particularly attentive to early signs of interpersonal strain:

Given the hierarchical distance, PhD students may have found it difficult to raise concerns directly. Isac explained how he used his intermediary position:

Another novice co-supervisor, Adam, recalled: “So there is a bit of that going on, like miscommunications. And I get put in a position to bring the two parties together.” Such interventions reinforced co-supervisors’ own interpretations of their role as being responsible for facilitating smooth collaboration and maintaining harmony within the supervisory team. By helping to resolve tensions early, these efforts also contributed to a more stable and emotionally secure environment for PhD students, which is essential for their well-being.

This intermediary role could be complex and emotionally demanding. As Fatma observed, tensions might arise not only between students and main supervisors but also within the team: “If the candidate leans heavily on their co-supervisors, and that wasn’t anticipated, the main supervisor can feel a little pushed out.” Navigating these dynamics required sensitivity and awareness from novice co-supervisors. However, Miriban emphasised the value of having a co-supervisor: “It’s good to have a second person. It gives, I think, a more kind of balance in the power dynamics between the main supervisor and PhD student”.

This section examines how novice co-supervisors supported PhD students’ well-being by providing structure, clarity and direction in the doctoral process.

Time pressure was described as a factor that negatively affected PhD students’ well-being. In response, time management was seen as a practical way for novice co-supervisors to offer structure and support. Fatma described her approach:

Fatma framed supervision as a relational space where PhD students learned to navigate expectations and develop confidence in their own judgement. Her concrete and practical approach to time management aimed not only to foster independence but also to reduce stress and prevent anxiety among students.

Novice co-supervisors also emphasised the importance of clear structures to prevent distress among PhD students. They believed that PhD students benefitted from regular supervisory meetings, clearly articulated expectations, transparent guidelines on publications and authorship, and a defined roadmap for future career development. In the interviews, they described how they proposed improvements. They took the initiative to organise supervision meetings, arguing that infrequent supervision could create conditions for anxiety and stress. Helena explained: “Yes, if you don’t have a supervisor who drives you with meetings every week and so on, then it’s very difficult. You can end up in a vacuum”. Adam also expressed frustration about the lack of structured meetings and described his efforts to formalise the supervision schedule:

Yet another novice co-supervisor, Lilian, described a situation in which she noticed a PhD student in distress and decided to contact the main supervisor: “Then I kind of brought this up [with the main supervisor]. He [the PhD student] needs your support! You can book some meetings. And then I sort of booked it for them”. Lilian took the initiative to organise the meeting – either to ensure that it happened or simply to be helpful.

This example illustrates how main and co-supervisors sometimes approached supervision meetings differently. While co-supervisors often aimed to create structure and routine, main supervisors tended to emphasise student autonomy. As co-supervisors were in more frequent contact with students, they were often the first to notice signs of distress or emerging support needs. In such cases, they sometimes involved the main supervisor – either because the issue exceeded their responsibility or was too complex to manage alone. However, some PhD students felt more comfortable confiding in their co-supervisors, particularly when hesitant to approach the main supervisor. As a result, main supervisors could remain unaware of students’ well-being concerns, while the novice co-supervisors grew increasingly frustrated by the lack of response or shared responsibility.

This section explores how novice co-supervisors supported PhD students in managing the stress and anxiety related to independent work.

Learning to navigate the academic landscape could be particularly challenging for PhD students from international backgrounds, especially when cultural differences affected their sense of belonging and well-being. Fatma described one student who came from a hierarchical academic culture:

This quote shows that supervision was not just about academic guidance – it also involved helping international students adjust to a new educational culture. Fatma described the Swedish model as focused on autonomy and self-direction, which was very different from what the student was used to. The student’s reaction – “paralysed by freedom” – revealed a clash of expectations. By offering both clear advice and space to self-organise – “Make your schedule” – Fatma supported the student’s shift from dependence to autonomy. This example shows how well-being and independence can grow together through trust and careful guidance.

When faced with challenges affecting their PhD students’ well-being, several novice co-supervisors introduced structured guidance. For example, Isac facilitated his student’s academic enculturation by gradually preparing her for foreseeable challenges, such as receiving critical feedback. Before each seminar, Isac explained that critical comments were a normal part of the academic ‘game’:

By offering these interpretive frames, the novice co-supervisor often took on the role of translating the institutional culture. This became especially important for students who were unfamiliar with, or unsure about, academic norms and expectations.

Many PhD students are reluctant to speak openly about their well-being. This final section explores how co-supervisors helped foster a culture of openness and supportive dialogue.

One day, the co-supervisor Ivan was contacted via Facebook by his PhD student, who faced well-being challenges that affected her ability to work:

This account highlights a key aspect of doctoral supervision: the uncertainty and reflective judgement often required when responding to sensitive situations. Rather than acting impulsively, Ivan took time to reflect – asking, “What should I do? How should I respond?” – demonstrating a reflexive approach in which the emotional and relational aspects of the interaction were carefully considered. The interviews did not clarify whether these co-supervisors were particularly empathetic individuals. Some felt that they were expected to engage in emotional support. As the co-supervisor Solveig remarked: “I observe very clearly that the co-supervisor is expected to give this social support, as well as having to take care of feelings a little more and stuff like that”. However, most had recently completed their own doctoral degree and may therefore readily relate to the students’ situations and understand their needs.

Co-supervisors also offered direct, practical advice about mental well-being resources and available support. One co-supervisor, Elma, described how she spoke openly about different strategies for well-being: “We talk about mental health, how it helps with meditation, how that can help them to focus […] but if they collapse, they call me.” Ümit described his own approach to promoting their well-being:

By openly sharing his personal experience with depression, Ümit presented himself as vulnerable and relatable, which may have encouraged his PhD students to be more open.

Overall, although they were new to the role, they made an effort to understand the PhD student’s situation. They tried to ease stress and reduce anxiety – factors that could otherwise disrupt the doctoral journey.

This discussion builds on the study’s aim to explore how novice co-supervisors support PhD students’ well-being. The findings show that these early-career supervisors were far from passive. Instead, they actively engaged with what was happening around them and responded in thoughtful, deliberate ways. They noticed signs of social isolation, recognised when students needed extra support, and took initiative – by arranging social activities, setting up meetings with the main supervisor or creating space for open conversations about well-being. They also exercised sound judgement, for example by inviting feedback or helping to ease tensions within the supervisory team. These actions echo Blumer’s (1969) idea that meaning is created through social interaction. Further, it reflects what Fine (2006) describes as social expertise – the ability to navigate complex relationships, unclear roles, and emotionally charged situations with care and competence.

Taken together, the findings point to three closely connected capacities through which novice co-supervisors drew on their social expertise: they served as steady relational anchors, brought structure and calm as stabilising agents, and acted as educational culture mediators who helped bridge gaps. While these roles may appear distinct, they were deeply intertwined and reveal how even those new to supervision can contribute in meaningful ways.

One of the most striking findings was how frequently novice co-supervisors acted as relational anchors – a pattern particularly evident in Themes 1 and 4. Several factors contributed to this capacity. Novices were often the first point of contact during periods of emotional strain. Not only did they listen with care, but they also shared personal experiences, thereby creating space for dialogue and helping to normalise conversations about emotional challenges. At the same time, they actively worked to maintain harmony within the supervisory team by fostering a collaborative atmosphere. While earlier research has suggested that some co-supervisors are hesitant to engage with responsibilities related to doctoral students’ well-being (Leshem and Bitzer, 2024), the present study offers a contrasting picture. The novice co-supervisors in this study were not only willing but actively involved in supporting students emotionally. These findings align with previous work demonstrating that both experienced and novice supervisors engage in emotional boundary work (Strandler et al., 2014). However, this study adds to existing knowledge by showing that such emotional support is not merely an individual function but relationally embedded – constituting a central aspect of the novice co-supervisor’s contribution to the supervisory process.

The second capacity, stabilising agents, builds on Themes 2 and 3 and highlights how novice co-supervisors helped create structure and continuity in an often uncertain research environment. They assisted students with project planning, facilitated regular meetings, and helped make feedback more manageable. Through these actions, they offered a stabilising presence that reduced anxiety and restored a sense of coherence. The analysis also surfaced moments of frustration and tension between main and co-supervisors. This aligns with earlier findings that co-supervisors often adjust to the lead supervisor’s preferences based on team hierarchies (Almlöv and Grubbström, 2024; Wilkin et al., 2021). However, the novice co-supervisors in this study also displayed a clear sense of agency. Prior research has also emphasised the importance of structure in reducing doctoral stress (Pyhältö et al., 2012; Cornér et al., 2017), and this study reaffirms those insights while shifting the analytical focus. Structure is here understood as relationally co-constructed through the active engagement of novice co-supervisors. In this mutual process of sense-making, both the novice co-supervisor and the PhD student – each new to their respective roles – contributed to forming a clear structure.

The third capacity highlights how novice co-supervisors acted as mediators of educational culture, particularly in interactions with international PhD students. As shown in Themes 3 and 4, differing expectations around independence and unspoken norms about well-being often led to uncertainty or stress. Novices supported students in navigating these complexities – guiding them in how to take initiative, process feedback, and take responsibility for their research. They also encouraged open conversations about well-being, helping to reduce stigma and foster a sense of belonging. These actions, though often subtle, had a meaningful impact. The findings echo earlier work by Elliot et al. (2020), which emphasises the importance of informal support within academia’s “hidden curriculum”. They also align with Guccione’s (2024) call for a “whole culture” of supervision and complement Wichmann-Hansen and Schmidt Nielsen (2024) findings by showing how novice co-supervisors promote autonomy through culturally responsive strategies.

Practically, there is a need to strengthen and make visible the support structures available to novice co-supervisors. “Such structures would have the added advantage of creating equity of support for both students and supervisors, particularly those academics new to supervision” (McAlpine and McKinnon, 2013, p. 279). Although highly committed, novice co-supervisors faced challenges. They supported PhD students dealing with both mild and more serious mental health issues and, in several cases, worked to ease tensions between the student and the main supervisor, a senior colleague. Previous research also shows that they often felt unprepared. This highlights the importance of addressing their needs at three interconnected levels: the institution, the team, and the individual.

At the institutional level, institutions can offer meaningful support by making the novice co-supervisory role more visible and structured – through policy documents that define responsibilities, formal recognition in appointments, and onboarding tailored to newcomers. Further, to encourage a supportive and inclusive academic culture is central. A supportive environment not only strengthens the novice co-supervisor’s confidence but also leads to more stable and responsive supervision, which in turn may support student well-being.

At the team level, clarity, communication, and collaboration are essential, yet in the thematic analysis there were indications that these may have been lacking. When roles are undefined, meaningful engagement becomes difficult (Wald et al., 2023). A lack of clarity regarding the scope of the role – particularly in the absence of explicit discussions within the supervisory team (Almlöv and Viberg, 2024; Wald et al., 2023) – may lead novices to assume complex responsibilities without adequate preparation. Teams can support new members by clarifying roles early, and ensuring that co-supervisors are invited to meetings, included in decision-making, and informed about the doctoral student’s progress and well-being. As the main supervisor holds formal responsibility, it is vital to lead discussions on how novice co-supervisors contribute to both academic and well-being aspects of supervision.

At the individual level, the findings indicated that novices did not appear to seek advice from other supervisors on how to manage challenging supervisory situations. They may therefore benefit from structured opportunities for reflection with others – such as feedback sessions, guided dialogue, or informal peer exchange. In this context, access to mentorship beyond the immediate supervisory team may also provide a safe and supportive space for self-reflection. They would likely benefit from a more collaborative team environment. As Amundsen and McAlpine (2011) note, the experience of being new is characterised by both challenge and reward.

While this study provides valuable insights, it also has limitations. Conducted within a single national context, its findings may not fully apply across academic systems. However, the global nature of academia suggests that many observed dynamics may be relevant elsewhere. All but one interview were conducted online due to pandemic restrictions. Although this limited observation of non-verbal cues, participants appeared comfortable and shared rich, reflective accounts. The use of thick descriptions enhanced analytical depth (Denzin, 2001).

Although novice co-supervisors often worked in the background, they played an important role in supporting PhD students’ well-being. They helped reduce feelings of isolation, brought structure and clarity to the supervision process, supported students’ independence, and made it easier to talk about well-being. Beyond these actions, they also helped shape what Guccione (2024) calls a ‘whole supervision culture’ – one that supports students not just academically, but also socially, culturally, and emotionally. In this way, they contributed to building a model of supportive co-supervision.

With gratitude to all the interviewees for sharing their stories as novice PhD co-supervisors. To Alexandra D’Urso for reading the final draft.