Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversation 2: Managing Relationships
Wed, 11 May 2011 (12.00-2.00) in the Upstairs Lounge, WEL Academy of Performing Arts
Discussion
Action Points
1. Scenario 1
Dr X is a supervisor who provides excellent academic advice and intellectual guidance. He gives thorough feedback
on draft chapters and prioritises this aspect of his supervision practice. However, Ms S his doctoral candidate is
unhappy working with Dr X. She acknowledges his expertise and his detailed feedback, but feels that he shows no
interest in her and her well-being as an individual and is solely focussed on the research project. She feels invisible in
his presence and this is affecting her confidence and motivation. Friends have advised Ms S that if she is unhappy
about the supervision experience, she should lodge a complaint with the Chairperson of the Department and she is
considering taking this action. She is a bit unsure about how her complaint will be received.
What would you advise Ms S and Dr X?
What is the issue here and how might it be addressed?
Comments:
 The situation has gone a long way down the track, parameters need to be set at beginning and procedures for
addressing
 Advise the student not to lodge a complaint but get the advice of third person such as chair, mentor, second
supervisors, impartial friends.
 Students should not have an expectation of a personal relationship.
 It is not clear what level of support the student expected. Was it extensive pastoral care or general acknowledgement?
Some level of relationship is expected in teaching. Is supervision teaching or research?
 Establish PhD support cohorts so there is not too much expectation on one relationship (D Spiller to send out
literature).
 Pressure on one supervision relationship is reduced by a team approach to supervision. In one Faculty, a default of
three supervisors in being put into place.
 There is always a shifting dynamic in the relationship between supervisor and supervisee, some of this is intuitive, it is
important to have some level of awareness.
 Do university academics have pastoral relationship responsibility?
 Some gender issues may be played out in the scenario.
2. Scenario 2
Mr D is a student with severe financial difficulties. He is just commencing his final (fourth) year of full-time doctoral
research and has exhausted all possible scholarship opportunities for funding from the University. He is making very
good progress on his research, but is running out of funds to support himself. His supervisor Professor Z is worried
about the thesis being finished in time and wants to know how he can best help the candidate.
What advice would you give to Professor Z?
What advice would you give to Mr D?
What is the issue here and how might it be addressed?
Comments
 Mr D could go part-time with PhD and part-time work, delaying his completion date.
 Mr D could find employment opportunities aligned with his study.
 Supervisor and institution should advise students at the beginning of their study regarding planning their finances, i.e.
1
scholarship schedule (3 years) and PhD (4 years) – encourage them that way to finish faster.
 It is not the supervisor’s role to ensure the student has money or guarantee a job but to inform them about planning.
 The supervisor could write to the dean to ask for support – student completion is important both to the student and
the University.
 There is a hardship fund developed from scholarships awarded to students who did not complete, which could be used
for such situations.
 Research shows part-time students finish in a shorter time pro-rata, but have a higher dropout rate.
3. Scenario 3
Drs A and B are partners and co-supervise Ms Z, who is two-thirds of the way through her doctoral studies. Ms Z
sends out an article (based on her doctoral research) for peer review. The reviewers’ comments come back
questioning Ms Z’s uncritical use of one particular methodology and querying why the data has not been considered
in fuller terms; i.e. with reference to other well-established methodologies in the discipline.
What are the issues here and how might they be addressed?
Comments
 The student has taken advice from supervisors without questioning; this can happen to anyone regardless of the
relationship between the supervisors.
 The situation would be the same as a situation with a single supervisor.
 It may be daunting for students to challenge two people if there are delicate academic sensitivities.
 The supervisors’ work is being questioned as well as student, therefore work with student to resolve.
 Perception is an issue – we need to make it safe for the student and supervisor. There is a guideline to have another
supervisor.
 There could be a question of professional ethics/conflict of interest.
 The comments could be unrelated to the supervisors’ relationship; student and supervisors need to ensure the quality
of paper sent to review.
 The issue could be the quality of reviewer.
 Consider the sustainability of supervisors’ relationship.
 The student should get a wider opinion from other staff in the department.
4. Scenario 4
Miss C is an international student living in New Zealand. She is also boarding in a house that is owned and occupied
by her supervisor. Recently, her supervisor has also offered her the job of child-minding his children.
What would you advise Miss C?
What are the issues here and how may they be addressed?
Comments
 There is a power differential and blurred professional/personal boundaries which would make it hard for the student
to say ‘no’.
 Special treatment by the supervisor would marginalizes other PhD students – perception and equity are issues here.
 The guidelines don’t advise close relationships between supervisors or examiners and student.
 It is difficult to renegotiate relationships once boundaries have been crossed.
2
General Comments
 Respect and engagement with the student are very important. There are different styles of communication and
relating.
 When student and supervisor have an initial conversation, students are now encouraged to ask the supervisor’s view
and philosophy of supervision.
 That policy and guidelines for supervisors can be found on the PGSO website and Higher Studies Handbook.
 The procedure and responsibility for communicating internal documents was discussed.
 The nature of supervision is such that it needs to be tailored to people which takes time. After the initial conversation
about expectations, relationships are gradually forged.
 There are personal/professional judgment and ethics, and institutional judgment and ethics. With supervision, a lot of
trust is invested in academics to act in professional ways.




Handling some of the finer differences in supervision come about with experience.
The invisible touch points are made obvious by extreme situations such as those described in the scenarios.
It would be interesting to have an online question/answer survey to find out the wider opinion of supervisors.
G Byrnes is working with those in the ASP project to include the Supervision Conversations as part of professional
development to incentivize participation.
Useful Resources/Links:
Postgraduate Studies Office website: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/sasd/postgraduate/
Higher Degrees Handbook: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/sasd/files/pdf/postgraduate/higherdegreeshandbook.pdf
Next conversation: Tue, 28 June 2011 (12.00-2.00) in Upstairs Lounge, WEL Academy - Supervision of Creative Practice
P Pratapsingh
12 May 2011
3