3. Agile Mentoring: Applying the Sprint Concept to the Thesis Process
Iterative Thesis Supervision
A work process inspired by Scrum can also be an effective method for supervising academic research such as master’s theses. The final product, namely the complete research report, can often be divided into manageable sub-products that each add value and can be developed and reviewed within short, clearly defined periods. In legal academic research, these sub-products are typically the individual chapters of the thesis. Together, they form the building blocks for formulating and answering the central research question.
By way of illustration, the master’s thesis trajectory at the Faculty of Law of the University of Groningen is used as a reference point for designing an iterative supervision process. At this faculty, master’s students begin writing their thesis twice a year, in early September and early February. Successful completion of the thesis yields 12 ECTS, which corresponds to 336 study hours. On average, the supervisor is expected to spend approximately 20 teaching hours on supervision. It is both the supervisor’s responsibility and in the supervisor’s interest to ensure that supervision can be carried out within this time frame, so that it does not come at the expense of other academic duties.
The following sections show that several elements derived from Scrum are particularly well suited to supervising master’s theses in law.
Step 1: The Product Backlog, or: the Thesis Assignment
Universities work with predefined and regulated skills-based assignments. These are laid down in programme regulations that specify the substantive and procedural requirements that thesis projects must meet. In most master’s programmes, the master’s thesis constitutes the final component of the curriculum.
At the Faculty of Law in Groningen, the aim of the master’s thesis is for students to demonstrate mastery of subject-specific and academic skills. In concrete terms, this means that students must be able to formulate an independent scientific research question based on acquired knowledge. They must also be capable of conducting academic research using an appropriate methodology, including the collection, organisation, structuring, critical evaluation and analysis of relevant material, usually literature and case law. On this basis, they must be able to draw and substantiate well-founded conclusions. Finally, the written thesis must meet the required academic standards of language and style.[1]
When translated into Scrum terminology, programme coordinators may be regarded as the Product Owners. They have oversight of the number of master’s students and, consequently, of the number of theses to be written. The thesis supervisor, who also acts as examiner, fulfils the role of Scrum Master by guiding each individual work process. The student carries out the assignment and therefore constitutes, in agile terms, a one-person ‘development team’.
For supervisors who guide multiple theses simultaneously, it is essential to have timely insight into the Product Backlog, that is, the number of students to be supervised in a given semester. This allows sufficient time to be reserved for supervision activities and helps ensure that supervision remains manageable alongside other academic responsibilities.
Step 2: The Sprint Planning, or: the Intake Interview
At the start of the thesis process, the supervisor and the student meet for an intake interview. Prior to this meeting, the student usually submits a research plan containing initial ideas for the thesis. This document forms the basis for the first discussion.
In addition to discussing the research plan, the intake interview serves two further purposes within the agile mentoring approach. First, it allows the supervisor and student to become acquainted on a personal level. Second, it is used to agree on the sprint planning, that is, the schedule of submission deadlines that determines the length and structure of each sprint.
1) Acquaintance
During the intake interview, the supervisor and the student become acquainted on a personal level, preferably through a face-to-face meeting. For the supervisor, it is important to gain insight into the stage of study the student has reached, the student’s personal circumstances, particularly with regard to time-consuming activities alongside the thesis, and the student’s previous writing experience.
In cases such as dyslexia or severe performance anxiety, the student can be referred at an early stage to appropriate support services, such as a study adviser or language coach. When students have substantial additional commitments, they may be advised to postpone the start of the supervision process. Experience shows that a demanding part-time job, an intensive internship or the need to take several resit examinations in the same semester as thesis writing often negatively affects progress on the thesis. If such risks are identified at the beginning of the process and appropriate measures are taken, unnecessary delays and a qualitatively insufficient final result can be prevented.
It is also important to inform the student that thesis supervision is provided for only one semester. A new group of students will start in the following semester. If delays occur that are attributable to the student, the supervisor will only read the fully completed draft version and provide feedback on that draft for the final submission.
By communicating this clearly in advance, unpleasant surprises at the end of the thesis-writing process can be avoided. Students who plan to combine the thesis with multiple time-consuming activities must therefore consider either postponing the start of the thesis by one semester or temporarily reducing these activities in order to benefit fully from the supervision process.
2) Discussion of the Agile Mentoring Method
During the intake interview, the supervisor and student subsequently discuss the agile mentoring method. This discussion can be based on a predefined thesis supervision document in which the process is clearly set out. The template included in paragraph 4.2 can be used for this purpose. It explains how the thesis trajectory and supervision are organised and clarifies the mutual expectations. This creates transparency and structure, making the thesis process more manageable for many students.
Practical note
I always send the thesis supervision document to the student by email prior to the intake interview. This allows the student to read it in advance and saves valuable time during the meeting. It also ensures that the student is aware, or could reasonably have been aware, of the supervision method before the process formally begins.
After discussing the supervision approach, the student can be offered a choice between two alternatives. The first option is to work according to the agile mentoring method. The second option is that the student writes the thesis without interim feedback and submits a complete draft four weeks before the final deadline. In that case, the supervisor provides extensive feedback only on this single version. Risks such as losing focus or becoming overwhelmed by research material then rest with the student.
If the student chooses the agile mentoring trajectory, the interim deadlines and the final deadline are agreed upon jointly. This can be done using a schedule prepared by the supervisor before the meeting. This approach is efficient, as it allows the supervisor to determine in advance how much time should be allocated between deadlines and in which weeks reading and feedback can best be planned alongside other professional commitments.
Students are usually more flexible with their time, whereas supervisors, in addition to their own research and teaching duties, may be supervising ten or more theses during the same period. Therefore, it works well to reserve one or two fixed working days for all meetings and feedback sessions, which are scheduled well in advance (see the example document in paragraph 4.4). Naturally, specific dates may deviate from the template depending on the student’s obligations or the nature of the research. These arrangements are made in consultation. It is essential, however, that all key dates are established during the intake interview.
3) Planning Deadlines
When setting deadlines, it must be clear in advance how many chapters or sub-products the thesis will consist of.
In my own practice, I start from the structure of an average legal master’s thesis. This generally consists of five parts: an introduction, three substantive chapters and a concluding chapter containing a summary and final conclusion.
Writing the introduction and conclusion is usually less time-consuming than writing a substantive chapter, and the planning of deadlines should reflect this difference in workload.
For developing a solid writing plan and producing a draft introduction, which together form the foundation of the thesis, I allocate two weeks. I use the same period for each substantive chapter. For the concluding chapter, I reserve two weeks, since the substantive research has already been completed by that stage. Finally, I allow one or two additional reserve weeks to accommodate unforeseen delays, for example due to illness or other unexpected circumstances.
The planning can be adjusted depending on the complexity of specific chapters. For instance, a substantive chapter dealing with a foreign legal system may require more time, because of the need to collect foreign literature or to become familiar with foreign legal sources. It is important to discuss this with the student during the intake interview. The sequence and duration of the sprints can then be adapted accordingly. In this respect, the predictability of submission deadlines is more important than strict adherence to identical sprint lengths. The supervisor is generally better able than the student to assess what level of depth and scope is realistic within the available time.
Part-time students will, by definition, need more time to complete their thesis. For this category of students, I usually double the time allocated in the planning.
Based on this division into time blocks, which is primarily determined by the supervisor’s agenda but coordinated with the student, a series of submission dates is established. It is crucial that these dates are respected, because otherwise the supervision process risks becoming delayed.
To ensure commitment on the part of the student, a clear consequence is attached to missed deadlines. If a student fails to submit a sub-product at the agreed time without a valid reason, both the written feedback on that part and the corresponding oral discussion are cancelled. In that case, no supervision takes place for that component. This risk lies with the student and must be clearly communicated during the intake interview.
Conversely, when a student submits a chapter on time, the supervisor is also obliged to provide written feedback within one week and to discuss it during the scheduled meeting. This consultation should therefore take place one week after the submission date. This time frame creates a corresponding responsibility for the supervisor, while still allowing sufficient flexibility within that week to plan the actual reading of the submitted texts alongside other professional obligations.
The agile mentoring process is therefore based on mutual responsibilities shared by the student and the supervisor.
4) Discussion of the Research Plan and Question Sheet
As the fourth and final part of the intake interview, the supervisor and student discuss the content and feasibility of the proposed research on the basis of the submitted writing plan and within the time frame in which the thesis must be completed.
Experience shows that students often propose research that is too ambitious. For example, they may wish to conduct an in-depth comparison of several national legal systems, even though they do not master the relevant languages or lack prior knowledge of those systems. Others may choose a predominantly sociological perspective for what is intended to be a purely legal thesis. It is therefore important to briefly reflect together on the scope, feasibility and practical execution of the research.
During this discussion, the supervisor should primarily ask guiding questions rather than impose a specific approach. Academic freedom remains the guiding principle. At the same time, the research methodology and the precision of the research questions require careful consideration, as they determine the scope of the research and, consequently, the feasibility of the thesis process. Responsibility for safeguarding this feasibility ultimately lies with the supervisor.
If the foundation of the thesis is not yet sufficiently developed, it can be helpful to provide the student with a question sheet that allows them to refine and sharpen their writing plan (see paragraph 4.3 for a sample document). Answering these questions concisely results in a well-structured research plan that is clear, focused and easy for the supervisor to assess.
Practical illustration
Many students find it difficult to understand the relationship between the main research question and the sub-questions. I often explain this by using the image of a house:
The main research question forms the foundation that determines the scope of the research. The sub-questions function as the supporting pillars. Each sub-question directly connects to a part of the foundation. The conclusion forms the roof and rests on these pillars.
In other words, the conclusion has exactly the same scope as the main question, and the answers to the sub-questions provide a complete answer to the main question. No more and no less. By making this structure explicit and visualising it for students, they gain a clearer understanding of both their research topic and the research process. This quickly establishes a solid basis for the thesis.
Step 3: The Sprints, or: Writing and Submitting Texts
After the intake interview, the student begins working in sprints. During each sprint, the student focuses on developing one specific chapter of the thesis. The first sprint is devoted to refining the writing plan and drafting the first chapter, namely the introduction.
In this first chapter, the key elements of the question sheet are addressed: what legal problem is being examined, what the research questions are and why they are relevant, and which methodology is applied. At this stage, the student also starts collecting the necessary sources, as this already forms part of the question sheet. By gathering sources as early as possible, unnecessary delays later in the process can be avoided, for example when certain literature is temporarily unavailable.
The second and subsequent sprints are devoted to answering the sub-questions of the research and reporting on them. Each sprint results in a completed chapter. These chapters must be written in language that is sufficiently clear and polished for the supervisor to assess them properly. When the student submits a chapter on time and in accordance with the agreed standards (as set out in the thesis supervision document), a short oral discussion takes place one week later, as planned.
The final two sprints are dedicated to completing the thesis, including writing the conclusion and submitting the final version of the research report. After submission of the complete and definitive thesis, a final meeting is held between the supervisor and the student.
Sprint Reviews: Feedback and Mentoring
When a student submits their work on time at the end of a sprint, it is the supervisor’s responsibility to read the text and provide written feedback. This feedback should be concrete and clear, using track changes to indicate where substantive weaknesses occur and where the quality of the text can be improved. The aim is not to correct every grammatical error in the document. In many cases, it is sufficient and more effective to correct several pages and indicate which types of language errors require particular attention.
Each sprint is followed by a short individual consultation one week after the submission date.
During each consultation, the supervisor first shares a general impression of the submitted text. This is followed by feedback on the main assessment criteria: content, argumentation, structure, language and overall quality. However, the conversation is not limited to identifying points for improvement. An equally important element is coaching. An oral conversation that includes encouragement, positive reinforcement and attention to the student’s individual development forms a central component of mentoring and is crucial for an effective learning process.
In principle, these consultations need not last longer than forty-five minutes. They can be structured as follows:
– Approximately 25 per cent: coaching
The supervisor explicitly asks how the student is doing and which difficulties the student encounters. The purpose is to promote open communication, gain insight into the student’s personal circumstances and identify bottlenecks or challenges at an early stage so that timely guidance is possible.
– Approximately 65 per cent: discussion of the content and form of the submitted text
This part focuses on the most important points for improvement. It is not intended to go through all written feedback in detail, as this is already provided in the annotated document that is handed over or sent by email after the meeting. For example, the presence of numerous spelling errors can be addressed by discussing only one or two illustrative examples.
– Approximately 10 per cent: discussion of expectations for the next sprint
This final part concerns mutual expectations for the next sprint, as well as answering any remaining questions and addressing additional issues raised by the student.
Practical note
By scheduling several consultations consecutively for students who are in parallel thesis trajectories, supervisors can prevent excessive time overruns and ensure that meetings remain focused and efficient.
Step 4: Grading
The grading of theses differs between universities and faculties. At the Faculty of Law in Groningen, each thesis is assessed by two examiners. One of these is the supervisor. This means that the supervisor reads the thesis in full once more and assigns an initial grade.
It is efficient when the supervisor also formulates a proposed grade accompanied by a written justification that refers explicitly to the faculty’s assessment criteria. The thesis is then forwarded to the second assessor, who shares responsibility for the final grade but, in accordance with faculty workload standards, has fewer hours available to review the thesis.
When the supervisor provides a well-reasoned grade proposal, the second assessor can review the thesis more efficiently and focus in particular on those aspects that the supervisor has identified as requiring critical attention.
Step 5: The Retrospective or Final Evaluation
Once the thesis has been definitively submitted and the final grade has been determined, it is important to schedule a concluding meeting in order to complete the supervision process. During this meeting, the supervisor briefly explains the final grade and invites the student to provide feedback on the supervision process.
This reflection serves two purposes: it offers closure for the student and contributes to the continuous improvement of the supervision method.
Agile Mentoring and the Core Values of Agile Working
Agile mentoring closely reflects the principles of agile working. Whereas agile teams aim to deliver valuable products that result in rapid customer satisfaction, agile mentoring focuses on a process in which the student works step by step towards a high-quality thesis. Regular alignment, continuous improvement of the thesis and effective communication between supervisor and student are central to this approach. This offers several advantages:
- Early involvement and continuous feedback
Rather than waiting until a complete draft of the thesis is finished, agile mentoring involves the student actively from the very beginning. Supervision starts with discussing the writing plan and draft introduction, after which feedback is provided continuously throughout the writing process. This keeps the student on track and allows the end product to be refined progressively.
- Flexibility in content
A key aspect of agile working is the ability to respond to changing requirements or shifts in the direction of research. If it becomes apparent during the research process that the research question needs adjustment or the focus changes, the method allows for these developments to be incorporated in time. This prevents students from becoming trapped in an overly rigid structure.
- Collaboration and personal communication
Just as agile working emphasises close collaboration between team members and stakeholders, agile mentoring relies on regular contact between student and supervisor. Oral consultations form the core of this communication. The supervisor does not merely provide written feedback but actively discusses it with the student. This enhances mutual understanding and accelerates the development of the thesis.
- Progress and planning in short steps
Agile teams work in short sprints that each produce a usable result. Agile mentoring follows a similar logic: the thesis is divided into chapters with clear interim deadlines and evaluation moments. Progress is therefore measured not only by a final version, but by the timely delivery of concrete parts. This makes progress transparent and manageable.
- Focus on quality
Quality of the end product is central. Just as agile teams aim for well-designed and technically sound software, agile mentoring aims for a thesis of high substantive and academic quality. Through regular feedback and targeted guidance, students can continuously improve their work, resulting in a strong final outcome.
- Autonomy and ownership
Agile mentoring places responsibility for the learning process with the student. The student determines the substantive direction of the research and is responsible for progress, while the supervisor provides support where necessary. This autonomy stimulates motivation and a sense of ownership and corresponds with the agile principle of working with motivated and self-organising individuals.
- Reflection and continuous improvement
Finally, agile mentoring incorporates moments of reflection both during and at the end of the thesis process. In interim consultations, supervisor and student reflect on the submitted texts. In the final meeting, they reflect on the supervision process. In this way, student feedback can be used to improve the supervision process continuously, in line with the core idea of agile working.
The Thesis Supervisor as Process Director
A crucial and distinctive feature of agile mentoring, compared to more conventional forms of thesis supervision, is that the supervisor retains control over both the thesis process and their own schedule. With regard to the writing process, this means that the student maintains full academic freedom over the content of the research, while the supervisor ensures compliance with the agreed working arrangements. This creates room for timely guidance, with the aim of achieving the best possible final result. Such an approach also prepares law students for professional practice, in which products such as legal texts or reports must be delivered for assessment within clearly defined time frames.
Agreeing on deadlines in advance enables the supervisor to align supervision tasks with other teaching and research responsibilities. In this way, sufficient time can be reserved for thesis supervision and the guidance of students becomes more effective. The objective is therefore not to impose uniform deadlines at faculty level, but to develop a tailored process in which the lecturer retains control over their own often demanding schedule.
- Based on Article 2.2 of the Thesis Regulation English-taught programmes (2025/26) of the Faculty of Law, University of Groningen. ↵
