Is a PhD like a reality TV contest?

Last night Denise, my boss, sent me a link to a New York Times article about two new reality TV shows starting up in Malaysia:  “Solehah” (pious female in Arabic), and “Ustazah Pilihan” (ideal female preacher in Malay). In these shows, Muslim women compete to be the best Islamic preacher. I’m imagining a Malaysian Islamic X factor vs Malaysia’s got (Islamic) talent, or something. I think you’d be hard put to think up a more extreme cultural mash up.

As Denise remarked: what an amazing world we live in.

Anyway, it got me thinking (again) about the similarities between doing a PhD and taking part in a reality TV show. I have an unhealthy obsession with reality TV, which I have accepted as part of the brain damage I suffered while doing my PhD. While I’m selective about which ones I watch, I find the whole genre endlessly fascinating for the way it portrays learning as a process of self discovery and transformation. Bear with me here, I think I’m onto something and want to throw these ideas past you in the form of an academic mash up of my own before I go all academic and write a paper on it.

Image: courier mail

Some years ago I picked up a book at the local library called “Makeover Television: realities remodelled” which contained a bunch of essays on reality TV shows that – well – do make overs on the participants (what fun those cultural theorists have). These are shows like “What not to Wear” where the fashionable Trinny and Susannah ambush unsuspecting women, convince them they have horrible taste in clothes and take them shopping. In the process of undergoing a wardrobe transformation, the women seem to be transformed too; from shy retiring dowdies to confident, take charge women.

At least that’s how the show portrays it.

In Australia, the reality cooking show ‘Masterchef’ is something of a national obsession (at least for some of us). Our version of the show, as distinct from the version in the UK, has a group of 24 amateur chefs who live in a house together and compete for the grand prize, week by week, through a series of challenges. The challenges are designed to test their cheffy abilities, usually under some kind of insane time pressure. If the contestant fails the challenge they must go into an elimination round; in this way two people leave the show each week until the final two have to battle it out for the title of Masterchef. I love it because, as an amateur cook myself, it’s kind of like watching sports; I get involved in the contestants failures and successes.

What’s interesting for me is that the participants on the show talk endlessly about learning. The learning shown to the viewer seems to be full of failure. The price of failure is high, potentially being sent home in disgrace and having your foibles taken apart by the news media for the entertainment of the whole nation for the next week or so. The learning is obviously painful, with many a sweating brow as the participant tries to make a baked alaska in an hour, or re-create some insanely fiddly French sauce with no recipe. At certain times professional chefs will come in to compete head to head with the hapless amateurs, usually demolishing them in a dazzling display of virtuosity. Over time you can see the people who have the ability to hold their nerve and learn from their mistakes beat those who might have superior natural talent.

What’s clever about the Australian Masterchef is the role of the hosts, who are all professional chefs themselves. The hosts judge the dishes each contestant makes by looking at and tasting them. I think this is the best part of the show; as each judge chews the food the contestant looks at them hopefully, trying to guess from the expression on their face (which the audience on Twitter calls ‘tasting face’) what the verdict will be. The judges are often brutal in the words they use to describe a failed dish, but will generally deliver constructive criticism and comments which are meant to help the participants learn and improve. The show is on every night (yes, we love it that much) and the Friday night slot is dedicated to a ‘Master class’ where time is set aside to learn a particular technique through demonstration from the hosts and invited others.

The parallels with doing a PhD are obvious, but worth reflecting on. Most of us start the degree with some skills in writing or researching, but we are likely to be amateurs. We are asked to perform tasks we might only partially understand, often with little instruction, and all with a looming deadline. Sometimes these tasks are more than we can handle and we fail – sometimes spectacularly. The price of failure is high here too; most of us have commitments to others who will be disappointed if we fail. Some of us will end up in debt or worse because of the time we have taken out of our professional careers.

Like professional chefs, professional academics have a whole bunch of tricks up their sleeve, which makes doing the ‘grunt work’ of things link data analysis and writing quicker or easier. A good supervisor is like a good host: they will taste your work and give you their constructive criticism. If you are lucky they will take time to share these skills with you, but often you are just left to watch the displays of virtuosity and try to learn from them as best you can. For example, many supervisors (including myself at times) can make the mistake of thinking teaching someone to write is best achieved by rewriting the paper for them, rather than taking the time to explain the principles or good writing and help the student put them into action. In fact, many supervisors could learn a thing or two from Masterchef and set aside some time to run a masterclass!

Here’s what I think is the key insight from this academic mashup I am trying to perform here. Masterchef and other make over reality shows are about learning which leads to a transformation of the self. Transforming the self takes work, dedication and time; it can also be uncomfortable and risky. We may fail to achieve our aims or end up somewhere we didn’t expect to be. But I take heart from the knowledge that, when it comes to PhD study, as on Masterchef, it’s not the best cooks who last right to the end. It’s the cooks who have the most resilience and ability to learn from their mistakes who go home with the prize.

What do you think? If your PhD was a reality TV show, which one would it be? How can you develop the necessary resilience to go all the way to the end?

Related Posts

What do you learn from a PhD?

Why you might be stuck

Whingeing Wednesdays and bitch buddies

They say that talk is cheap, but is it really?

In a recent paper  (yes – the old fashioned, peer review type) I talked about the phenomenon of ‘troubles talk’ between research students. In Australia we call this ‘whingeing’; in the UK they might call it ‘having a moan’. Interestingly, the word ‘whingeing’ is derived from the Old English ‘hwinan’ : “the sound of arrows whizzing through the air” and ‘hwinsian’:  “to whine like a dog”. This derivation implies whingeing is a form of passive warfare, or social irritant, which is perhaps best ignored. However, when someone tells a trouble to another, the opposite is more likely to be true – telling troubles can bind us together. In fact, sites like PhD Comics or this blog wouldn’t be nearly as popular if they weren’t full of troubles talk! 

In this guest post Dr Shari Walsh, careers counsellor extraordinaire at Queensland University of Technology, talks about the benefits – and drawbacks – of whingeing. Shari introduces us to the idea of ‘whingeing Wednesdays’ and ‘bitch buddies’  as well as a few more positive strategies.

What do you talk about with your PhD colleagues? Are you supportive of each other or do you tend to complain about the PhD process, supervisors, administrative procedures? Often, it is easier to bond with people by sharing and empathising with problems. Although this can be constructive and supportive it can also lead to a ‘culture of complaint’. So, is this a bad thing?

Not necessarily. The sharing of difficulties can lead to offers of support, shared understanding, and start the process of managing and solving the problem. The difficulty arises if complaining is the focus of most conversations and a negative or toxic environment develops. Giving time to and sharing difficulties is an important strategy to keep your sanity during process of completing your PhD and some student groups I have encountered have devised fantastic strategies to enable this to happen.

For instance, one group I know has a ‘whingeing Wednesday’ get together, in which, the group sets aside an hour every Wednesday to simply pour out their problems to each other. Discussion of problems is minimised at any other time and group members hold on to their problem until that time. This allows problems to be heard and gives a dedicated time for this to happen. It also encourages positive talk outside the time.

Another group has regular coffee catch ups throughout the week with each other. The catch up starts with the difficulties of the time and ends with a good news session. Another strategy is to find a ‘bitch buddy’. This is someone with whom you can simply let it all out (rant and rave) for 15 – 20 mins. Then it is their turn. While each buddy is talking, the other one is not allowed to say a word, simply to listen, nod, acknowledge etc.Obviously the buddy has to be someone you trust and the conversation remains confidential.

Similarly, it is important to find time to acknowledge and share successes. Here are some ideas:

• Having a weekly or monthly good news time where every person mentions something (anything!) that has gone well for them.
• Writing a piece in every School, Faculty, or Divisional newsletter about what the PhD cohort is achieving. This also reminds everyone within the university about how great you all are!
• Organising a regular celebration with your colleagues and/or supervisor.

So take regular moments to look around and listen to the conversation. Are the themes negative or positive? If skewed either way, then you have the power to take corrective action!

Thanks Shari! If you are interested in how complaining can be a bonding experience, have a read of the user friendly version of the paper I published on the RMIT blog called “Why do academics complain so much?” or tell us in the comments – why do you love to have a whinge?

Related Posts

PhD grief

The perils of PhD Parenting

I’m a Paying Customer … How Assertive Can I Be With my Supervisor?

I was lucky enough to get a Masters degree and PhD by research on the public purse – the University of Melbourne even paid me a living stipend while I was doing my PhD (ok, technically it was an amount below the poverty line, but better than nothing at all). Australia is relatively generous – at least to local students; in other countries, all students have to pay to do their PhD. When you pay fees are you a student or a customer? How much can you demand of your supervisor? Dr Sarah Louise Quinell from Networked Researcher and Kings College in London ponders these issues in this guest post.

Tuition fees for research degrees are set to increase, in the UK at least. Many people are going to start thinking about whether their research degree represents value for money. I thought I would bring together the two themes of fees and how assertive you can be with your supervisor. I think it’s fair to say that everyone will have a different opinion on this and I expect a lot of comments – so let the discussion commence!

In previous posts I have outlined how I experienced some of the best, and the worst, in research degree supervision. Supervisor number one wasn’t bad, they were just not right for me. I spent ages thinking I had to conform to their way of doing things and it made me very miserable. I didn’t enjoy my work and many times I wanted to walk away. During this experience I learned that I needed to be more assertive; I had to take control of my destiny and get what I wanted from my PhD – but trying to be assertive with my supervisor got me nowhere.

When you pay your fees (or in my case, my Research Council – I was ESRC/NERC funded from year 2) you are paying for the opportunity to gain the degree and for the whole environment which supports this – good administration, desk space, computers – as well as supervision. These other, more tangible, ingredients are certainly things you can directly relate to fees. You pay, so you should have appropriate space to be able to do your work and resources, such as libraries, journal collection access and so on. In my view you must be forceful about getting the infrastructure you need to do your work; relentlessly so in some departments as provisions for PhD students seem to be an afterthought.

But are you really the ‘customer’ of your supervisor? Can you apply the same logic of ‘user pays’ to this relationship? No, I don’t think you can.

I worked in retail for 10 years. People came in choose what they wanted and bought it. If it met with the purpose they kept it; if it not they brought it back. A customer can choose between products, they can do research beforehand try different things to see how they ‘fit’. The same can’t quite be said for education. The student supervisor relationship is a funny thing, as I am sure you will have gathered from my posts. It is one that is built on experience and respect – and that is something that has value, but not in a monetary sense. You can’t always tell in advance if it is going to be the right ‘fit’.

I had one supervisor I didn’t work well with and another I did. What was different were their philosophies over what the PhD was. Number one had a very definite idea of what I should be doing, whereas, number two was happy for me to do what I wanted and would only be critical if they felt I could do it better, or if I was about to make some horrendous mistake.  This worked for me and is why, several months after completion, I still have a good relationship with supervisor number two. She is still supporting me, still has my back and we are looking at ways to work together in the future. Our relationship is very much built on mutual respect.

As a PhD student, you are not buying the finished product; you are, I suppose, trying to develop the finished product. You do this development with the aid and guidance of a supervisor. To a greater or lesser extent, depending on experience, you are reliant on the superior knowledge and judgment of your supervisor to get there. You can expect your supervisor to read, comment and return your work within a suitable time frame. You can expect to be supported, to be guided, for your work to be valued. But what you get out of the relationship with your supervisor depends on how the supervisor values you, and your research. Sometimes you and your supervisor will be incompatible.

You can’t change your supervisor’s style just because you are paying for your education – but you can change supervisors if you think that they are standing  in the way of you successfully completing your degree.

So how does that relate to being assertive and getting what you need? It might work with getting books from the library, but not with people. I tried being assertive with supervisor one and that got me nowhere, so I changed supervisors. I never needed to be assertive with number two. I like to think that if the ‘fit’ is right, there should be no need. So,  if you do feel the need to continuously assert yourself with your supervisor… maybe it’s time you found another one?

Related Posts

How to ask your supervisor for a divorce

Living happily ever after

Truly Bonkers, I’m Starting to Think You’re Truly Bonkers .. Early Warning Signs Your Supervisor is a Loon

This is a post from our regular “Supervision Correspondent” Dr Sarah Louise Quinell. Sarah is now the managing editor of The Networked Researcher a blog supporting & promoting social media for research & researcher development.

Firstly, all academics are a little bit eccentric, even if they don’t like to admit it. You have to be really – for working in an incredibly pressurised environment where you get very little recognition, unless you make a mistake. Having to publish or perish, teach, supervise, get grants etc and continually have to find creative ways to save money… it is enough to drive anyone over the edge.

However, there is good crazy and bad crazy. When you undertake a PhD you spend a great deal of time with one, maybe two people as your supervisors. You learn all about your supervisors own particular brand of crazy and they, in turn, will get to know all about yours. There are times though, when their crazy can be a cause for concern. Here’s five ways to spot the kind of crazy that might endanger your studies (and your sanity!):

Is your supervisor a control freak?

Does your supervisor like to micro-manage? In the natural / hard sciences this is the norm, i.e. you are working on your supervisor’s project and you do what they want. In the social sciences (where I come from) there is a greater degree of freedom.  You are more likely to be working on something you came up with on your own.  But for all students some degree of autonomy and independence from the supervisor is important; after all you are meant to be making an  “original contribution to knowledge”. You can’t do this without being allowed to work and think on your own – at least some of the time.

There are some supervisors who don’t understand that this is your PhD, your work, and that it has to be yours to defend through the examination process. To do this successfully you need to feel you own it. While supervisors have a great deal of experience in how to write a thesis, what makes a good thesis etc, some seem to get confused over this issue of ownership.

I had this problem to a certain extent. My original supervisor micro-managed everything, down to the last paragraph; it was incredibly stressful and frustrating. If you experience this behaviour, and it appears not to be compatible with your way of working, maybe you should consider working with someone else.

Does your supervisor criticise you in public?

Have you presented at a conference and suddenly heard a snide remark from the back only to find it’s your supervisor? Believe me this happens! I’ve seen it and I’ve seen the poor students try to defend themselves and been totally lost. This is not best practice, have a word. Better still, show them the door.

Does your supervisor discuss their family planning issues in front of you?

I remember my friend’s face as if it were yesterday, after a rather awkward moment in a chemist when their supervisors announced condoms were useless! This sounds funny but, for both of you, it’s best to try and keep a vaguely professional relationship until after you finish.

It’s the responsibility of both parties to make the relationship professional, but since there is an uneven power relationship between you and your supervisor,  who is notionally your teacher, it can be hard  sometimes to assert yourself.

Some students are happy going to their supervisor’s house, baby sitting their kids, picking up the dry cleaning and so on – but others do it under sufferance because they are too scared to say no. If your supervisor doesn’t seem to be taking the hint you are uncomfortable with the level of intimacy they are offering , you will need to think carefully about whether you can work with them all the way to the end because…

Phoning at 2am is not normal… for either of you!

It really isn’t. It does happen though and it’s a sign that both of you have let the  professional boundaries slip a bit too much. Do think carefully before exchanging mobile phone numbers – this increases the likelihood that the relationship will escape the bounds of normal working hours.

The problem is, the further along in the process the more stressed you get, the more you are likely to text them at 9pm. I did – particularly to adopted supervisor in the final year. I was lucky, mine always phoned me back; others, particularly those who don’t have teenage children, may not be so accommodating.

Has your supervisor ever made you cry?

If the answer to this is “yes”, you probably need to remove yourself from that relationship forthwith. Original supervisor (must find a better way of differentiating the two) made me cry the first time I met them and then look how that ended up.

As I said at the start of this piece you will learn about your supervisor’s crazy, they will learn about yours, they will probably end up knowing you better than you do yourself and vice versa. Good humour is a pre-requisite for a good relationship, but when the crazy makes things difficult then it’s time to re-think your way forward. These observations about crazy supervisors could easily be turned around and used to describe crazy students - they are out there. If you are reading this post and recognising any of this behaviour in someone you are working with it’s time to have that difficult talk.

How about you – have you encountered ‘bad crazy’ in your travels through academia? How did you recognise it and what did you do?

Related Posts

How to tell your supervisor you want a divorce

Should I stay or should I go now?

Should I Stay or Should I Go Now … ? a.k.a Do I Divorce my Supervisor or Learn to Live With It?

In previous posts I have discussed how to ask your supervisor for a divorce and how to maintain a good supervisory relationship. But what happens if your relationship with your supervisor bounces up on down on the sea-saw: sometimes fine, and other times not? What should you do?

I have been reflecting on this issue and want to offer some advice for anyone contemplating this dilemma:

Talk to your supervisor

As I have said previously, it may well be that your supervisor is experiencing the same issues as you and are just as uncomfortable / unhappy with the nature of the situation and talking will help you to resolve it.

You may think your supervisor will react badly to a straight forward approach and that honesty will only make the problem worse. Are you willing to take the risk? Only you will know the answer to this question. I didn’t talk as much as i probably should have and maybe i got that bit wrong.

Consider whether you can do anything to change the situation to make it workable

Supervision is a two way street and you both need to contribute equally to the relationship. Ask yourself: are you being too demanding / unreasonable? No, this is an attempt to blame you, the student, but it is important to consider whether what you are requiring is unreasonable. In that case:

Get some perspective discuss your concerns with someone in your department

Many times the “should I or stay or should I go?” question arises due to a personality clash. It is worth getting some perspective from someone who is not directly involved. There should be someone you can go to in confidence to discuss how you feel, be it a second supervisor, PhD tutor, or someone else in your department.

I did this, on a number of occasions, and was told that the problems I was experiencing with my supervisor was just their way. This was true, but ‘their way’ was somewhat – in fact completely - incompatible with ‘my way’. That does not make them a bad supervisor, period, just not the right person for me.

How do other people work with your supervisor? (or not)

It may be worth having a chat with other people who share your supervisor, have worked with or have been supervised by them in the past. Other colleagues may have encountered similar problems and have some useful suggestions.

Draw up a list of pros and cons

It may seem old school in the digital age, but get out a pen and a piece of paper and list the pros and cons for working with your present supervisor. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Can you work with / manage the negatives in view of the positives?

If you have considered all these points and you are still not sure what to do, ask yourself these questions:

If I continue with this partnership can I tolerate the present situation continuing?

Think long and hard about this. What may seem easy conceptually, may not be in practice. It does not matter how much prestige is associated with being supervised by a particular person if the relationship is having a detrimental impact on you, or your work.

Doing a PhD is stressful enough. You do not need anything else to make it worse. It took me 5 years to work up the courage to finally address this situation, which added another year on to the amount of time it took to complete my thesis. This is not good for you. A thesis is the start of your career; you need to do it, get it examined and move on. It is not healthy for you to carry on in a dysfunctional relationship.

If you can continue the relationship then you need to realise that things may get more difficult and you have to find ways to deal with them. If you have a second supervisor use them more, but also be guided by them. If they tell you to change you probably should listen.

Does this relationship ever make you feel you want to quit?

If it does then you need to consider your exit plan, not from the thesis but from the supervisor. Divorcing your supervisor will inevitably lead to a changed situation for you. You will have to be prepared for some people to take a disliking to you for your actions.

In the end only you know whether you can continue or not. Just because you decide to stay put doesn’t mean you can’t come back and review it later on. Each situation is different and time can heal, or make things worse, if not treated. Don’t let your relationship go septic.

Related Posts

Supervisors are not elephants

How to deal with two supervisors who disagree all the time

Who cares about authority?!

My supervisor eyed me keenly,  ‘You’re aiming to become the expert on this particular subject’, he reminded me.

Well, that was only a few months into my doctoral research.  I didn’t feel much like an expert on anything at that stage!  Indeed, even though I’ve now been awarded the doctorate and am trying to get published, natural diffidence would prevent me from claiming to be the expert on all aspects of my subject.  Certainly, there are some areas where I can be fairly sure I’ve delved deeper than anyone before me – but not necessarily every topic I touched upon.

It wouldn’t be possible.

Anyway, this isn’t about me.  Stepping  briskly over the metaphorical wall which demarcates Karen-the-researcher from Karen-the-librarian, I want to write about the whole issue of authority. It’s such a large and complex issue I’m going to approach it from five  different angles.

Librarians think about authority – more often than you’d think.  And I don’t mean in the “who’s in charge round here?” sense. Questions of authority particularly come to the fore when we’re selecting books to add to stock, or when well-wishers want to donate materials. These may be something they’ve inherited, have finished with, or have even authored themselves.

Whenever this situation happens I have to ask myself some questions:

• Do I want to add a whole load of simplified editions of piano classics?
  (Answer: No. Our students want to know they’re looking at the real thing, with expression marks and tempi – not to mention the notes themselves – exactly as the composer intended.)
• Do I want to add a substantial collection of Beethoven sonatas published 80 years ago?
  (Only if the editor was an expert in his field.)
• Do I want to add an unpublished paper by an unknown, self-appointed ‘expert’?  (Hmmmm.)

Your librarian tries to ensure that what goes on the shelves is authoritative, but it goes without saying that you will be much more of an expert in some aspects of your field. This means you have to accept some of the responsibility for checking out your sources.  Are they fit for purpose?

Postgraduates should think about authority too.   When you’re researching a subject, you need to be sure that your sources are authoritative. This is of paramount importance when you come to write your literature review or to cite references in the body of your thesis.

Actually, Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “I keep six honest serving men” – often quoted to trainee news reporters – isn’t a bad one for PhD students, too:

I KEEP six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

Let’s think again about that unpublished paper that I was asked to add to stock: 

What was the author saying?
Why did he need to conduct the research or write the paper?
When was the research conducted?
How was it carried out, and how had he tried to disseminate the results? 
Where was the author placed, in terms of a research community, college or specialist society?
In short – Who was he?  Did his opinion carry any weight amongst his peers?

(These are the kind of questions you ought to be asking when you’re doing web-based research, too.)

Established academics certainly think about authority.  ‘Peer-review?’, a disgruntled author said to me, ‘Oh, these journal editors can be so stuffy! They only accept your article if they know you.’

Not so, dear friend!  I happen to believe that peer-review is an excellent system.  Two or three experts are asked to read your work – they probably won’t be paid for doing it – and to write a critique assessing the paper, the work behind it, and whether it’s suitable for the journal that you submitted it to.  This dis-interested quality control system is why if you’re published in a peer-reviewed journal, it carries more weight.

Conversely, if you cite a peer-reviewed article, you’re citing something that has been deemed worthwhile by members of the academic community.  Self-published works don’t necessarily come with the same guarantee.  And the writer of an internet article could be a total genius, a well-respected author or an unknown crank!

Your supervisor thinks about authority.  S/he needs to know what you’ve read, and where you found the information – if you found it on the web, who said it?  Can you cite a weblink?  Does the author have an academic reputation?  Is it sufficiently up-to-date in your field?

Examiners are doing you a favour when they think about authority.  You’re submitting a serious piece of work to get that all-important doctorate.  Without that vital qualification, your future progress – certainly in academia – will be very much more difficult.  (Let’s face it, it’s hard enough to get on with a doctorate!). So if your examiners insist on correct citation of authoritative sources, they’re training you well for your future in academia.

Who cares about authority?  As far as I’m concerned, anarchy is only for the very young, very immature idealist.  You absolutely should have an enquiring mind.  Question everything.  Don’t rest until you’ve satisfied yourself that arguments can be sustained and can withstand the most rigorous testing.  If they can’t, then say so.  But do demonstrate a healthy respect for authority.  It’s the first step to becoming an authority yourself!

I was told my thesis was a solid, well-researched piece of work, in part because I understood the complexities around academic notions of authority.  No-one said it was brilliant, but it was good enough to get the PhD. By the time you’ve struggled that far, that’s really all that matters.

Learning to fly

This guest post is by Jess Drake who is doing her PhD in soil science at the Australian National University. In this post Jess offers some advice for the next time your supervisor says “Just do it”.

At some point on our thesis journey, we get comments from our supervisors like:

“I know you will work it out”;
“Why are you bugging me with this?”, or even:
“Just keep going. You will get it.”

These comments are often at a critical point where you really need some help, and they can seem somewhat unthoughtful.

I remember the sense of dread that came over me the first time I had a supervisor say “Just do it”. I felt like a bird being pushed out of the nest, forced to fly and fend for myself. I started asking myself “Now what am I supposed to do? I can’t do this by myself! I just have no idea! Why don’t they care? And why aren’t they listening to me?” It took me awhile to realise that when a supervisor says this, they are actually being positive and helpful. In fact, that jump out of the nest could actually be a major step in your research life…

Chirping baby birds

The relationship between students and supervisors is almost like a flock of hungry baby birds chirping wildly at their parent. Students are always crying for attention. Supervisors are flat out feeding them with information. But supervisors are very busy people; juggling students, courses, research and administration. Comments like these from a very busy supervisor may simply be due to the lack of time to help a student with a fairly difficult problem. Try to ask them again, via email or at an arranged meeting or when they have more time. If you still get the same response… then…

Perhaps you have become an adolescent and you can almost fly on your own.

We often forget that our supervisors don’t spend all day doing the same thing as us. Maybe your supervisor needs more time to think about the problem? Maybe they aren’t entirely sure how they can help?

Try explaining the issue in a different way. Take them to the lab and show them. Write it down. Talk through the problem with them. Use diagrams. And – most of all – be patient. Spending some time on communicating your thoughts is helpful for your supervisor and to yourself. Once you have it right the insight can be used for your thesis, papers and presentations.

Perhaps it is time to leave the nest?

Still asking for help and not getting fed? Your supervisor may be gently letting you know that they can no longer help you with that part of your research. They have realised that you are capable, smart and possibly surpassed their technical knowledge on the subject. They want you to leave the nest and fly on your own. Now, you are the person who can answer the question.

Living alone and in a flock

Terrified, shocked and doubtful are some of the emotions we can feel when we get pushed out of the nest. All of a sudden have to fend for ourselves. But our supervisor has been carefully nurturing us and making sure we have all the tools to survive in the research wilderness. And when we don’t, there is a flock of other researchers we can ask.

So when you are faced with eviction from the nest and problems you feel like you can’t solve ask yourself: ‘how important is it for me to know this thing to finish my thesis?’ – Can I write a thesis without it? Can I alter my thesis question? Has this problem become a new question? Try writing a mini-research proposal where treat the problem like another research question. Give yourself a set amount of time (2 weeks, 1 month…) to try and answer the question. If you can’t, try another tactic.

Contact experts in the field and ask them for advice – it may seem scary, but I have only ever heard of 100% positive replies to students who were asking for help. Being part of the broader scholarly dialogue, sans supervisor, means learning to seize at any opportunity to get your work peer-reviewed. If you don’t feel up to submitting a journal article or conference paper, ask post-docs, other academics, friends and experts to review your work. This also opens up avenues of collaboration and job opportunities.

Finally, don’t be afraid to make a decision – even if it is wrong, you can still write about it in your thesis!

So don’t be afraid, worried, angry or depressed when you hear ‘Just do it’. It may be that you know more than you think, that you are ready to go it alone and it is time to be your own researcher.

(Many thanks to Helen King for her thoughts about this post)

Related Posts:

The ‘it’s time talk

Most students aren’t supervised by elephants…

5 ways to make your supervisor happy

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle … of two supervisors who don’t agree

Having two supervisors is becoming increasingly common. If, like me, you did your PhD within a college of the University Of London, UK you will automatically get two supervisors. This is done for a range of reasons including; supervisor commitments, breadth of knowledge / experience, pastoral reasons (so you don’t end up needing my much publicised divorce post) etc.

Most universities that go down the two supervisor’s route do so because they believe it to be beneficial for the student however, it can also lead to an interesting set of issues, especially if they don’t agree.

Disagreements between supervisors can occur over a range of issues however, most commonly they relate to differences of opinion over the content of your thesis and that nature of supervision. This can lead to the student feeling they are being pulled in two opposite directions not knowing what to do or who to agree with. In this post I give you my top tips for managing dual supervisor disagreements.

Don’t take disagreements personally … You may have two supervisors because of it’s your institutions ‘way’ of doing things, or because you are undertaken interdisciplinary work which requires a breadth of expertise or maybe your supervisors are both part time.

They will both bring a great deal both conceptually and methodologically to your PhD experience however, they will probably both have very different ways of doing a PhD and approaching your topic which are rooted in their own experiences of working with students and maybe even, of working with each other.

It is very unlikely that you personally will be the cause of any disagreements; they are more than likely going to relate to something outside of your supervisory arrangement. I have viewed cases where two academics who didn’t like each other were brought together to supervise a PhD, the majority of their disagreements resulted from personal and professional differences / rivalries nothing to do with the student. This is not an ideal scenario but it can happen they key is not letting it get to you.

Remember, it’s YOUR PhD … so what you write about i.e. the content should be driven by you. This is easier said in the social sciences, arts and humanities etc where the subject of your PhD is generally one you have come to yourself, but even in the hard sciences the very nature of or purpose of the PhD is for you to become an independent researcher.

Thus while your supervisors can guide you, stopping you from making horrendous mistakes, it is your work and it will be you who will have to defend it in the viva (if your institution has them). As such I recommend you draw from both supervisors, if they have differences of opinion on how you approach an issue, consider both and then either go with what you prefer or if possible take from both opinions to form your own framework. As long as you can defend the position you took the majority of supervisors would be happy.

Be inclusive & treat them equally … It’s very tempting at times to play one off against the other; I know I’ve been there! One supports an idea, the other doesn’t, don’t use their disagreements or differences as a means for gaining something, as believe me the only thing you will gain is a headache.

Try, where possible, to reach a compromise that you can all work with. Do not sideline one supervisor if they don’t agree with you, again it will come back to bite you, you never know you may need them to help you out, especially for references. Try and conduct as many meetings as possible with both supervisors together, that way everyone is included, everyone’s point of view is heard and you can work out how to move forward so you are all working in harmony – in theory. It also helps to cc both supervisors into emails in order to keep everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.

Disagreements aren’t always negative … in some cases positive developments can occur out of disagreements between supervisors. Both of mine disagreed about the nature of the ‘field’ and ‘international fieldwork’ one supported the traditional go overseas for 9 months strategy the other didn’t this went back and forth for a number of months so in the end I made short traditional visits and developed my web 2.0 skills to create a field site in cyberspace where I also conducted my research.

Had I not become engaged in social media for that very reason I wouldn’t be writing this post for you today. Maybe your supervisor’s disagreements can get your creative juices flowing and lead you to develop a useful compromise that will benefit your own personal / professional development in the long run.

If their disagreements are hampering your work … then you may need outside help. It maybe that you can bring the two supervisors together and say please sort this out but, as illustrated earlier, if it boils down to personal and or professional rivalries you may need to discuss it with your PhD tutor or Head of Department.

The key is to be sensitive in how and who you approach. You should know your department set up well enough to be able to make the decisions, if not Head of Department is a default ‘go to’ person. It’s really not your job to sort this kind of thing out, you have enough today and hopefully, if you have followed my advice from the post on maintaining a happy supervisory relationship then you should get on with them both, their disagreements should be between them. I would expect most supervisors to be professional and to be working to support you as a student so hopefully you won’t need to step in.

Related Posts

How to ask your supervisor for a divorce

Living happily ever after…

Elephants never forget…

Elephants never forget, sadly most PhDs are not supervised by elephants! How to deal with forgetful supervisors

We’ve all been there; walked into our supervisor’s office and they look at you perplexed, or enter into some kind of weird conversation and then look blank when you sit down because they have completely forgotten your meeting.

I’ve heard of more extreme cases which include the supervisor having to be reminded of the thesis topic at every meeting, even after submission! At the same time I remember seeing supervisor number two in the college coffee bar and sending her into a blind panic thinking she had forgotten a meeting (she hadn’t). We are all human, we all forget from time to time so here is my strategy for helping you help them to remember and stop yourself from having a nervous breakdown at the same time.

Keep emails succinct and to the point

Supervisor number two used to show me the hundreds she got on a daily basis. With that number it is no surprise most are skim read and sadly, that can lead to no end of problems. Try to be as succinct as possible when you email your supervisor. Use bullet points, or alternatively, number each point so they can reply to each in turn.

There are two schools of thought on ‘quantity’ of emails. Either send them one long one with everything you want to say in it or send them by topic. I’ve experienced people who prefer both so there is no hard and fast rule, my inbox today proves it. I have 8 emails from my supervisor all on different topics all sent within minutes of each other! You’ll soon be able to see what your supervisor responds best to or what annoys them and work with that.

When you have a meeting set an agenda … Always set an agenda prior to turning up to a meeting. This helps both you and your supervisor cover the topics / issues you need to discuss, go through them one by one and tick them off as you do so. This means if you do go off topic, and you probably will you can bring it back to the issue at hand easily. This makes supervision sessions more productive in my experience and also stops the ‘oh I wish I’d asked about xyz’ feeling ten minutes after you leave.

After the meeting send them an email

This is particularly important if you have agreed a certain course of action and if the supervisor needs to do something by a certain date. Make sure you outline what you agreed, who is going to do what by when etc. A PhD is a partnership; you need to do your bit as well. This should help both of you clarify what you are doing to move forward.

Set realistic deadlines

This is as important for them as it is for you. As I keep saying it is a partnership and so you both need to meet the goals you set yourselves but be realistic, sometimes life will get in the way, for both of you so the key is to keep each other informed and to change meeting dates or whatever if you need more time.

It is better to take more time and have a productive discussion over a piece of writing that is sub-standard. At the same time they need to be honest with you when they can realistically do things. If you know your supervisor is forgetful or swamped, take their proposed deadline and suggest one that is a week or so on from that. Make sure you can work within that framework but allows them slippage.

Remind them, politely if they don’t do something

You won’t be the only student that your supervisor is dealing with so, as my supervisor suggested in my previous post, it is perfectly acceptable to remind them, politely. It took me ages to actually get into the habit of doing this; I thought I was being rude however; waiting for work to be returned for 6 months is not acceptable. Make sure you give them plenty of time to do whatever it is you need especially if the request is for references. It is your PhD, you need to drive the process.

Make sure you know when they are away … This proved particularly important for me. So make sure you know when they are away, that everything you need has been done before hand and also agree what you should do if something crops up during their period of absence. Seems pretty obvious but it’s amazing the number of PhDs I’ve seen wandering around looking for supervisors who weren’t even in the country, let alone the department.

If you are coming in for a meeting make sure you have something else to do

I lived about an hour by train from my campus and remember how I felt when I had arranged a meeting with supervisor number one and came in specially only to be told he no longer had time. It is fair to say the air went blue. From this point on I always made sure I had several things to do when I came in and sent email or text message reminders of meeting dates to make sure they were ok.

Be visible

Make sure you are ‘seen’ around your department, it is surprising how chatting to another member of staff in the coffee line can lead to them saying to your supervisor I saw so and so and reminding them you are around! Visual stimuli come in all shapes and sizes

If it is causing you stress talk to them

If it is making your working life difficult then talk to them about it. A good supervisor will understand your concerns and should adjust accordingly, especially if you meet every one of their targets, requests etc. You can do it politely by saying what you need / want to achieve in a certain time and that it requires then to do X by Y or just be direct and say your forgetfulness is not helpful to me what can we do to change things. They may be aware of their shortcomings and be able to suggest things you or they can do to remedy it.

The key is communication, don’t let this get out of hand as forgetfulness can easily grow from a mild irritant, to you suddenly requiring my divorce article!

Related Posts

How to tell your supervisor you want a divorce

Living happily ever after

The ‘It’s Time’ Talk

Living Happily Ever After (aka Maintaining a Good Student / Supervisor Relationship)

In my last post I wrote about what to do if you need an academic divorce during your PhD. This time I am considering the flip side of the argument: maintaining a successful student / supervisor relationship.

After my ‘divorce’ was finalised my secondary supervisor took over and we began the process of rebuilding and working toward submission. I think it’s fair to say we get on very well, so this post gives you advice from me with input from my supervisor.

Do your research (on your topic) … If there is the possibility of choice in topic (as with many social science and humanities PhDs, less so with the hard sciences), work out a topic with your prospective supervisor which really reflects what you want to do for the next three years or so.

There is always some flexibility and change in setting up a research project, particularly if it includes fieldwork overseas, but the core issues under investigation and the approach/framework of inquiry need to be ones with which the student (who will do the work and whose name will be on the PhD) feels comfortable.

The topic needs to be yours, and you both need to be on the same page when it comes to what you are doing and how you will do it. Getting this balance wrong is one of the main causes of requiring a divorce.

Do your research (on your potential supervisor) … Try to meet your prospective supervisor before you apply to the college.  This may not be possible if you are an overseas student.  However, it helps to see if you think you will probably get along.  If you do not feel this, then perhaps you should apply elsewhere.  Of course, if this is the only university where you will get funded for that topic, this is a dilemma.

That sounds simple, but believe me many students choose their supervisors based on the most arbitrary of reasons, including me. I’ve heard all sorts of stories illustrating how little attention people pay to how they choose their supervisor, even down to ‘they had a nice dog’. Just because they may be a leading light in your field, or have a nice dog, you may not actually get on with them. You have to work with this person really closely for a number of years and so it does help if you like the person and have some chemistry.

Be efficient … There are usually various hoops to jump through to prove you are worthy of completing a PhD – upgradings, presentations, methods training etc.  Ensure you jump through the hoops in a timely fashion.

Don’t give your supervisor a reason to be annoyed with you! These procedures, however time consuming have to be completed (although shhhh! I never did my final year presentation). If you don’t do them, you won’t get an email about it, your supervisor will!

Do your part … Try also to meet the deadlines for pieces of writing and research asked for by your supervisor and respond to their suggested edits and corrections in a timely fashion. Put your name, the title or topic of the work, and the date on each piece of writing etc you pass on to your supervisor or they (and you) can lose track of the various versions of chapters etc.  (remember you are not their only student so a file called Chapter One is inadequately identified!)

It took me a long time to get the hang of identifying my work correctly. However, if your laptop dies and you need to look for old stuff on supervisors computer it becomes really important. This tip also highlights the important issue of suggested edits. As you go through the process you take more responsibility for the shape of your thesis. You have to be aware they are making suggestions about your work not you (it took me a long time to get that).

You don’t have to make the edits but be prepared to justify your decision not to and also remember they have supervised many students so if they suggest a change probably a good idea. I have frequently been told I hide my light under a bushel, so most suggestions related to pulling the interesting bits out and also grammar!

Time is precious … Supervisors are usually too busy.  If there are bureaucratic forms and reports and references to be filled in, it helps if you fill in as much as possible, or send a CV and a general idea of what sort of reference is needed, and alert them some time before the deadline that a meeting, or whatever, is needed.   If they do not respond immediately, try again (politely).

You have to give your supervisor time to respond to your requests. You are one of many PhD’s, Masters and Undergraduates requiring attention. Supervisors have other things going on their lives not just your thesis, as you do, or don’t depending on whether it’s taken over your life yet? However, at the same time six months to return a piece of work isn’t acceptable or useful to you so you have to keep the process going. In the end it is your PhD so it is not unreasonable to expect the onus to be on you to get the best out of the relationship.

These tips provide the basis for maintaining a reasonably functional set up, providing there are no underlying issues, this is because every relationship is different and a lot of it boils down to chemistry between the supervisor and the student. If you can keep these ideas in mind you should have a very functional relationship with your supervisor leading to the satisfactory completion of your thesis.

Dr Sarah-Louise Quinnell gained her PhD from the Geography Department of King’s College London in 2010 and is currently the Managing Editor of phd2published.com . She also contributes to a number of blogs on issues relating to Higher Education and Research and is currently developing training courses for the King’s College London Researcher Development Programme

Related Posts

How to ask your supervisor for a divorce

5 ways to make your supervisor happy

The “it’s time” talk