Why is it that for many postgraduates their research becomes an isolating and largely unrewarding activity which is endured simply for the sake of a qualification? Perhaps you reject this question outright and therefore have no interest in my suggested answers. If you are a postgraduate then this matters very little. If however, you are an academic supervisor you would be well advised to read on, for you might be surprised at the number of disgruntled and disenchanted individuals working with you. Please note, working with not for you, for I believe that the gulf between the attitudes represented by the substitution of these words can lead us a long way to understanding what is wrong and what could be right with the relationships between supervisors and students. That many academics fall into the trap of believing, explicitly or implicitly, that students work for and not with them is due to a number of factors.

Firstly, they obtain the funding for the work to be carried out and are then relied upon heavily, at least initially, for advice and guidance if not direct orders. Such a scenario can easily result in the creation of a master/pupil relationship which can be hard for either party to break out of, and results either in an overly directive supervisor or an irritatingly passive student. This is particularly common when, due to the indolence of those making the appointments, postgraduate posts are habitually filled from within a department's own crop of undergraduates and such behaviour is already instilled in embryo. Intradepartmental appointments incidentally also result in the uptake students who are not best qualified for the research they undertake. When this happens, the resulting discontent is not only felt by the groups within which such students work. If X can obtain a PhD by doing 12 hours work a week, why should Y work a 14 hour day towards the same end? The observation is not frivolous or inapt, go to any university library and take a look at the standard of some of the theses which have obtained their writers a degree.

​

Secondly, in discharging their duties both to the university and other organisations such as teaching, administration, editing of books and journals, seeking research
funding and producing their quota of publications, little time is left for supervisors to actually practice science. As such it becomes easy to see research students as the hands for carrying out the experiments which they would do if only time allowed. Yet the very constraints which prevent their practice of science also result in the loss of time and ability to fulfil their roles as effective supervisors. This results in a loss of the students' confidence, and doubts as to the practical and theoretical abilities of their mentors. Moreover, the prospect afforded by a department filled with career scientists who never venture into the labs is not one to encourage others to follow the same path. Add to this the petty politics and wrangling between staff members, which is not only unproductive but leads to factionalisation between individuals and whole groups, and students' regard for the academic staff reaches its nadir.

​

Given these facts, is it any wonder that graduate students sometimes feel that they have cause for complaint? Yet there are no adequate mechanisms through which their grievances can be aired in a structured and constructive way. Many students are naturally wary about a direct approach to their supervisor when problems arise since it may only exacerbate circumstances and thus make future contact all the more difficult. The annual assessments of supervisor performance completed by research council students are derisory: they may be seen and signed, or unseen and unsigned by the person under consideration. Hence all returns are untrue and signed. In these ways bad practice and poor relations are perpetuated, with a good number of postgraduates continuing their research in order to avoid a blemish on their CV's.

 

If these problems are to be addressed, it must be both at an official and personal level. A more open system of appointing postgraduate students is necessary in which the intradepartmental "quick fix" is abandoned. This, together with a more rigorous and fairer assessment of students, especially during the initial phases of their PhDs, should improve the quality of research personnel. Greater cooperation between members of staff and their research groups both within and between departments must be encouraged so that access to information, expertise and facilities becomes easier, thus maximising usage of time and money. Postgraduates should be given more access to information, and the ability to influence decision making in spheres which impinge upon their research and working environment. Completion of a confidential supervisor assessment after a candidate achieves or abandons his/her degree should be made mandatory. How some of these changes can be made should form the basis of discussions between staff and postgraduates. To succeed they must be based upon mutual respect between intellectual equals. If this last state of affairs can be achieved, many of the problems of staff/student relations will already have been solved.