PhD students who complain about supervisors ‘never hear outcome’

While “very few” PhD students and supervisors make formal complaints about each other, far fewer learn the outcomes, an Australian study has found.

A survey of more than 1,200 research students and 600 supervisors at 10 Australian universities has revealed how poorly institutional processes can function when the supervisory relationship goes sour.

Less than one in 10 respondents had lodged formal complaints, the survey found. But for those who took that step, three out of 10 supervisors and five out of six students were never informed of the outcomes.

Co-author Jan Breckenridge said university enterprise agreements often denied students any right to know the results of complaint processes against staff, while privacy provisions prevented full disclosure of processes against students. “It’s…about protecting individuals in the complaint process and who has the right to know,” said Breckenridge, head of the School of Social Sciences at UNSW Sydney.

“There could be concerns around mental health or private diagnoses, [and] there are times when it’s probably not appropriate for someone to know what’s happened to an individual staff member. But…it’s really unsatisfying for the students, that’s for sure.”

The findings underscore doubts about universities’ procedures for “addressing unacceptable behaviours” in candidate-supervisor relationships, according to the report. More than one-third of respondents were “equivocal” about the policies and over one-fifth considered them completely ineffective.

Breckenridge said universities were not “closing the loop” after complaints had been initiated. She said administrators could be more forthcoming without necessarily supplying all the details.

For example, a student might be told that an academic is no longer supervising, but not whether disciplinary penalties have been applied. Then an administrator could discuss what the student needs to continue the PhD. “A conversation like that is not hard to offer.”

Overall, most supervisory relationships were harmonious, with 71 per cent of candidates and 85 per cent of supervisors deeming them satisfactory. But one in five students and one in 20 academics were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, often for similar reasons.

Around one-quarter of students and one-third of supervisors said the other party did not communicate clearly and ignored or rebuffed attempts to bridge the gap. And about one in eight students and one in 20 supervisors sought advice because the other party made them feel “unsafe, threatened, bullied or discriminated against”.

Breckenridge said “a bad match” often lay at the heart of such problems. “It’s like therapists – some people can be wonderful therapists for one person and absolutely dreadful for another.

“It’s not that anyone is doing anything wrong. They just don’t communicate in a way that’s effective for a learning relationship. Someone might want to meet more regularly. Someone wants to meet less regularly. Someone doesn’t like this level of…criticism. If the only option is complaint, I think that’s a problem, because then people are looking for what they can pin a complaint on.”

She said supervisors needed “well-developed skills in relationship management. What keeps people in a PhD or master’s by research is that capacity to keep them motivated, to manage their stress, to provide feedback in a way that’s helpful. The best subject matter expert isn’t necessarily able to impart that for all students.

“How do we do the match? At the moment, it’s very much left to the [pair]. We don’t acknowledge the relational aspect. Supervision from a subject matter expert is reduced down to something other than the relationship that makes the difference.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com