PhD supervision- how would you handle this?

[BellaHadidHere]

I inherited a challenging PhD student who I was supervising with a Prof.

I'm an SL but very little supervision experience (two to completion, eight currently working on projects).

Prof then left so I was supervising alone. I don't work in the area of this PhD at all. I feel confident supporting methods but absolutely not the empirical/theoretical focus. I'm humanities.

A new colleague joined our Dept who works in the empirical/theoretical area of this PhD. She's an L with no supervision experience.

After she'd been around for a few months, I asked her to co-supervise with me. She agreed so I informed the student, our PhD director and the relevant admin teams that she was doing it.

Meanwhile, she changed her mind and decided she didn't want to supervise this student because it's too challenging for her first one. I get the sentiment but we're massively short staffed and everyone is taking on extra admin, teaching and PhD supervision to keep the Dept. ticking along.

A Prof (who also doesn't work in the area of the PhD) has tentatively put himself forward to supervise with me instead of this new L colleague.

However, this new colleague is really well-placed to supervise given her expertise and I feel that to support our PhD students the best we need to match students with the necessary experts. So it's concerning me that this PhD student will end up being supervised by me and this other Prof, neither of us having knowledge of the research area while our new colleague who has relevant knowledge and could support the student, isn't involved.

The other issue is that because we are so short staffed, we all need to chip in where/how we can and, unfortunately, none of us are able to be picky on some issues. We've been short staffed for some time and when we had a flurry of people leave, I (and many of my colleagues) took on a number of PhDs that weren't in our areas or were quite challenging to help out and be collegiate. The same needs to happen now and I feel frustrated that this new colleague isn't showing the same collegiate-ness that others have/is needed.

So, now that I've told everyone this new colleague will be supervising with me. She's agreed to come to a meeting with me and the student to offer some guidance but will then, apparently, step back from the project leaving me at square one and the student with a piss-poor supervision team.

How would you handle this situation, please?

What I want out of this is for the new colleague to supervise with me because of her expertise and for her to kind of recognise that we're massively stretched and need all hands to the pump.

No- that's way above my pay-grade Household I'm just one of the more junior lecturers (though sadly not in age!) on the lousy receiving end. Yes I get that rotating HoD is a contributor, (though surely even then junior staff could be managed effectively?) but what I'm saying is that the system is stupid because it stops people and the workload being properly managed. we now have appointed, permanent HoDs (in our pre '92) but the problem is very entrenched and I'm not convinced it will ever properly be resolved. There are too many conflicting interests and too much showboating. But that's just the way it is. Unlike my previous job no one will die, except perhaps in frustration

I agree that academic management has to be different from most management, as the academic head of department is never viewed hierarchically. Many universities are moving into an era of academic performance management but this is always going to be in tension with a rotating head of department role. (Although in many places the head of department role can be much longer than 3 years.)

I do think that many issues such as that described in this thread can be improved by good workload models that take into account teaching and administration. With a count of workload it becomes much easier to insist that somebody does take on a necessary admin task - using the argument that they don't have any admin load. And those who always duck out of admin can more easily be forced to take their share of the departmental workload by having extra teaching to compensate for less admin.

I do partially agree with you, slightly, that the culture of tolerance of underperformance in academia goes too far at times - people can be reluctant to put a stop to quite outrageous behaviour.

User. My department has a comprehensive workload allocation model. It has improved some things but it doesn’t solve the problems of colleagues who just refuse to do their jobs. Or do things very badly. I have a colleague who provides atrocious feedback: it’s brief, unhelpful and almost always very late. This happens year in and year out and and nobody does anything about it. There are no consequences to being bad at teaching and admin.

We are a pre 92 university with a 3 year rotating head, though in practice we’ve had six HoD in ten years due to our HoD getting University level admin roles mid term. I think that model, nice in theory, is looking increasingly weak as academic departments grow (we have 80 academic staff) and the demands on academics increase. HoDs increasingly need to be skilled managers of people.

This happens year in and year out and and nobody does anything about it.

This is what I'm getting at when I say that academics are reluctant to confront bad behaviour from colleagues. I agree that HoDs and indeed heads of divisions/groups need to improve their management skills to deal with such situations.

It is not acceptable for some people to not pull their weight when others are working like crazy. HoDs have to be willing to use formal warnings etc when situations of underperformance escalate.

BTW I do think in most UK universities there are now consequences to being appalling at teaching, due to the importance of NSS and REF. Very few departments can afford to ignore NSS. Your university must be a bit behind the curve in terms of performance management if it is not cracking down on very poor teaching/feedback.

We got Gold in the TEF

There’s aggressive performance management for research, but as yet, none for teaching/admin. The department gets it in the neck for NSS, but it doesn’t filter down. The ever changing management probably doesn’t help: we’re forever going back to the beginning in terms of HODs realising who the problems are.

I meant TEF, of course, not REF. Once subject level TEF comes in....

Thanks for all your help with this. I thought I'd update you!

Last week, I went to see DoGS about this and he was fantastic.

Short story is that DoGS is taking it up with new colleague's mentor (the Prof who advised her not to take on the PhD student) and will be insisting that the new colleague takes on this student.

He wants me to withdraw from the supervision and let this PhD student be supervised by the new colleague and the Prof. I said I'm not all that comfortable with that as it feels like passing the buck and I'd want to be involved to at least aid the transition. We'll see.

Unfortunately DoGS is coming to the end of his term in office so a new DoGS starts in January. She's an awful person and very much in the clique of new colleague and the Prof (our Department is horribly cliquey) so I'm hoping the supervision is sorted by current DoGS before Jan otherwise starting this conversation with new DoGS will be an generally horrendous experience.

So, outcome all good I think

Great outcome! Just make sure you schedule a handover supervision before January: you, the candidate, the Prof and your new colleague. Then you bow out having done everything absolutely by the book.

Thanks Household

I'm going to see what comes from the DoGS talking to the Prof and/or new colleague and take it from there. I'm okay to still be involved in the supervision but the new colleague really needs to take the lead given it's her area of research.

I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. I saw the new colleague yesterday and smiled/waved at her which was met with a very frosty half-smile. I suspect discussions have occurred but I've not been privy to them. That's fine, it's not really my problem.

Hi everyone

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but there have been some developments that I'd really appreciate advice about, please.

So, DoGs went to see new colleague's mentor who denied advising new colleague to refuse the PhD student. He also refused to be involved with supervising the project. So, DoGS went to another very experienced professor who has said he will supervise with me. However, it transpired that when DoGS spoke to this guy, he didn't mention new colleague at all and just proposed supervision to this guy as being me and him. I find this very strange as I'm still keen for new colleague to be involved.

Anyway, I don't think anything has been said to the new colleague (formally I mean nothing's been said, I'm sure her mentor (the Prof who's refused to have anything to do with the project) has said things informally). As far as she's concerned, she's said that she doesn't want to be involved and that's what's happening.

Yesterday I saw DoGS who basically said that people couldn't be compelled to supervise if they didn't want to so seems to have basically washed his hands of any attempts to get new colleague to take this student on. Very odd and very out of character for DoGS so I don't know what's going on there.

Anyway, me and new colleague are meeting with the PhD student in a few weeks time. The other supervisor can't make it. As I said above, new colleague's plan is to come along to this meeting, give the student some advice about readings/direction/debates etc. and then step away from the supervision team.

The plan seems to be for me to have a word with new colleague before this meeting and basically ask her to reconsider being involved with the project now that we have another more experienced supervisor on board. I will do this but I'm pissed off as I don't see it as part of my job to convince colleagues to do what they're fucking paid for.

Once me and new colleague have had that conversation, we'll be able to discuss with the student in a few weeks time how supervision will work going forward.

Anyhow, my questions are:
(a) am I right that it's unreasonable for me to be having this conversation with new colleague as that seems to be DoGS job?

(b) what do I say to this new colleague if she again refuses to be involved in the supervision? I think it's a mistake from the PhD student's perspective as she could do with her support but I also think it's a mistake for the new colleague who's identifying herself as not being a team-player and there are reasons she needs to be a team player. Basically, I don't want to fall out with the new colleague but I do want to let her know she's being unreasonable, uncollegiate and that might cost her in the longer term.

(c) would you have this conversation in person or by email? I feel that in person would be less formal and confrontational but I think a formal record of her being a twat might be good.

What?! Where the fuck is your HoD?

I'm sorry, in the dept where I work - and in the dept where DH (a HoD) works - this would just be a matter of the HoD allocating the student as part of workload planning. Your colleague would just be told to do it, and if her workload was taken above what was reasonable for her level, she'd be relieved of something equivalent, maybe a dissertation or two.

It should not be your responsibility to sort this out - you are being let down by your senior colleagues here. I am constantly amazed by how poorly some departments are run - and I know it's very, very real because the adjacent department to mine is the same, full of slopey-shouldered senior professors who pass a disgraceful amount of admin onto junior colleagues!! It's like some people simply don't understand the context in which they are working, and haven't adjusted to the fact that this is no longer the 1970s.

At the end of the day, you're being punished here for caring too conscientiously about this student's welfare. If management aren't going to step up and your colleague isn't going to do the decent thing voluntarily, there's not much you can do, other than simply to state, in writing, that you're not the best person for this job and do the best job you can. Don't forget that the modern PhD is not what it used to be - it's now a quick, down and dirty job. (I've seen some absolute shockers pass with flying colours recently). You might not be the perfect supervisor for this, but you will have the skills and the nous to be able to do a basic job of steering the student to completion.

whisky We only have an interim HoD as no-one stepped up to take on the role after the previous HoD left. Our interim HoD has very reluctantly taken on the position. She's a people-pleaser and basically doesn't want to involved in the confrontations/feuds or dirty work that come with HoD.

I think she's very conscious that she'll be going back into a normal professor role soon as wants to minimise the number of people she pisses off in her short time as HoD.

DoGS said that when he spoke to HoD about it, she basically distanced herself from the whole thing- passed the buck back to him who has then passed it back to me.

You're right, I do feel completely let down by senior colleagues here. I have a massive PhD load and I've never complained about that, I've always picked up slack where necessary. I'm pissed off and disappointed that the first time I have raised an issue, I've received absolutely zero support.

The other thing that annoyed me was DoGS saying that colleagues couldn't be compelled to supervise if they didn't want to. I felt like saying "Oh well if that's the case, here are seven of my PhD students I don't want any more and you, apparently, can't make me supervise"

I think in many departments in the social sciences & humanities (I can't speak to the sciences) a toxic culture has built up - something approaching abuse by senior colleagues of their position. They often work in a kind of work-shy collective, selfishly protecting their own research and interests while palming off all the difficult, tedious and time-consuming jobs to other people.

It needs to be stopped by a firm management culture, with proactive and kickass HoDs who basically tell people to step up or step out, supported by Deans/Pro-VCs who are aware and active.

It sounds like you really don't have that in your place of work. I think I'd be tempted to put my concerns down, professionally and unemotionally, in an email to the HoD, DoGS and the colleague, including the point about being short-staffed. And then you might have to leave it there. You may not win this one, because you're swimming against the whole tide of an ingrained departmental culture, and by the sounds of things, without support. In such circumstances, however, it no longer becomes your fault if the student's supervision is sub-optimal - it's not your responsibility to "fix" this. All you can do is the best job you can, in the time you have available. It sounds awful, but it seems to me that a lot of those who are successful and sane long-term in academia are so by virtue of doing a measured and reasonable best ("good enough is good enough"), and not letting it bother them that sometimes that means something isn't done optimally. It's a more difficult thing to achieve for women who are inclined to care about their work and others, however.

Yep, that's pretty much what our department is like.

We did have a really strong HoD who went some way to addressing the culture but she left after a number of years of pretty serious bullying by professors who didn't like her style of telling them that they couldn't just do whatever the hell they liked.

Yeah. That's why you need a good pro-VC/Dean. It can be sorted, but it takes concerted effort with support from the top.

This is being managed very badly. If I were you I would withdraw from trying to find other supervisors, this is not your job, it's DoGS job but I would document your concerns about this student's lack of qualified supervision in writing both to your DoGS, HoS and possibly also to the student. If this student fails their PhD the shit could hit the fan and you want to be able to show you did everything right on your part.

Also does your institution have annual reviews? Of all the masses of needless paperwork forced on us this can be the odd exception of a useful practice. A yearly meeting with student supervisor and another senior member of staff where progress is reported and any concerns and actions are minuted and accepted by all three. That is the time to highlight the need for a more qualified supervisor, highlight the student's lack of progress or their unreasonable demands for immediate supervision at a time that suits them, etc.

Booboo So, do you think I shouldn't bother having a word with new colleague prior to the supervision meeting in a couple of weeks?

I thought that if I asked her to come on to the team and she said "No" that'd give me the catalyst to be able to write an email documenting all of my concerns. Otherwise, it's kind of coming from nowhere as I think all other parties are under the impression that the situation's sorted.

Yes, we do have annual review forms that we fill in. I think my student's is coming up in the next few months (she's PT so it's hard to know the FTE equivalent) and I'll be writing a lengthy and detailed account of everything that's been happening.

I personally wouldn't have a word with the new colleague individually - you're not her mentor or line manager, and (as you rightly say) it's not your problem to sort out. I think while your advice to be more collegiate is spot on, it may well be unwelcome from a peer. The people who need to sort this out are the DoGS/HoD/her line manager if different from HoD.

When you say the student is "challenging", what does that mean? They're brilliant? They're thick as two short planks? They're argumentative? They are likely to fail? That seems to be at the core of the new person's refusal to help out - perhaps some appropriate support could be offered?

Okay, I won't bother talking to the new colleague about this then.

What I will do is have the supervision meeting with me, PhD student and new colleague and then, by way of follow up, email DoGS and HoD to let them know the plans for the coming year, the new make-up of the supervision team (me and prof) and to state the reservations I have about the student and the lack of appropriate supervision.

She's challenging because (a) she doesn't have an academic background so writes poorly and can't engage with theory at the sort of level we'd expect,
(b) she is juggling a job with her studies which means she disappears for months on end,
(c) she refuses to take on my feedback and has accused me of being a "harsh" supervisor because I've given her comments on her work which basically drew attention to the many flaws.

Good plan! A couple of things leap out

• It's not your responsibility to get a sub-standard student through, especially if reading and writing aren't forthcoming from that person. Some people aren't right for a PhD. The kindest thing to do is exactly what you're doing - to advise that the work isn't up to standard and risks failing, and make sure the DoGS is aware. Don't take on a burden here that is hers, not yours - it is particularly not your responsibility to offer editorial/proofreading support - she needs to pay a professional if that is required. (All that said, it is amazing what passes these days). If she fails, she fails. Provided you've flagged this as a distinct possibility, it won't reflect on you.
• If she is that challenged at this and really not putting the work in, a supervisor who is an expert in the field isn't going to make that much of a difference to the thesis or the outcome. So yes, it's super-annoying your colleague isn't pulling her weight, but don't feel she's being short-changed in getting you.
• There needs to be a look at PhD admissions procedures to see who let her in and why. DH has a similar student in his dept - she is from a non-academic background and just utterly useless - and she's been taken on because the DoGS is a wanker and has terrible judgement. While postgrads are an important revenue stream, they also come with costs and in some cases the latter outweigh the former. It's unfair to the supervisors, and it's unfair ultimately to the student, who is wasting time and money on something she's really not cut out for, to have admitted her. DH has basically had to put admissions in the hands of someone more sensible for the future.
• What stage is she at? If she passed her upgrade, how the hell did that happen? If she hasn't, can it be used as a gentle exit strategy?

It's not your responsibility to get a sub-standard student through, especially if reading and writing aren't forthcoming from that person. Some people aren't right for a PhD. The kindest thing to do is exactly what you're doing - to advise that the work isn't up to standard and risks failing, and make sure the DoGS is aware. Don't take on a burden here that is hers, not yours - it is particularly not your responsibility to offer editorial/proofreading support - she needs to pay a professional if that is required. (All that said, it is amazing what passes these days). If she fails, she fails. Provided you've flagged this as a distinct possibility, it won't reflect on you

Yep, I've come to terms with this and I've emotionally withdrawn from the work. I'll absolutely be giving her supervision support but nothing above and beyond. DoGS knows she's not very good and failing is a possibility.

If she is that challenged at this and really not putting the work in, a supervisor who is an expert in the field isn't going to make that much of a difference to the thesis or the outcome. So yes, it's super-annoying your colleague isn't pulling her weight, but don't feel she's being short-changed in getting you

Yes, I do agree though I believe students need to be matched to the most appropriate supervisor to support their theoretical understanding. I'm not that person and while new colleague wouldn't get her writing up to scratch, she'd certainly help the theoretical side of things.

There needs to be a look at PhD admissions procedures to see who let her in and why. DH has a similar student in his dept - she is from a non-academic background and just utterly useless - and she's been taken on because the DoGS is a wanker and has terrible judgement. While postgrads are an important revenue stream, they also come with costs and in some cases the latter outweigh the former. It's unfair to the supervisors, and it's unfair ultimately to the student, who is wasting time and money on something she's really not cut out for, to have admitted her. DH has basically had to put admissions in the hands of someone more sensible for the future

I said earlier that our former DoGS was absolutely shit and let a whole range of completely inappropriate people in. She's left now.

What stage is she at? If she passed her upgrade, how the hell did that happen? If she hasn't, can it be used as a gentle exit strategy?

I think she's about 12 months FTE. She passed her 9 month confirmation by the skin of her teeth. I don't think she realised it was quite so close. I suggested a couple of very robust reviewers with whom she might have had a harder time (and possibly been asked to leave) but she flatly refused and went with a couple of ECRs known to be very kind. I was fairly new to my job at this point and didn't put my foot down. In retrospect, I should've done.

You sound like you're doing everything right. It's shit you've been lumped with a crap and inappropriate student.

Thanks whisky

The student has now emailed to say she actually can't make the date in a few weeks time for our meeting. Being PT she can only make one day of the week which is my protected teaching-free day. Normally I'd make an exception and meet with PhD students on my protected day but I'm absolutely not in this case.