Managing feedback expectations at PhD level

[Marasme]

I am sure we've discussed this before, but I am kind of stuck.
I have a large-ish team with 1 PDRA, 2 RAs and ~6 PhD students at various stages of completion. My students have historically all performed very well (prizes, papers, opportunities) - I select them as carefully as I can, and nurture them to their full potential. All are co-supervised as per uni rule, although the 2nd supervisors are mostly piggy-backing for papers, to my great annoyance and that of students. This is another matter altogether. We do PhD expectations as per Vitae guidelines early in the PhD, so have some foundations for our interactions.

Out of the 6 students, I have one who is bright, but also terribly demanding. He writes and writes and writes, and is avid on feedback, regardless of who else is submitting at the same time, whether a team member is in distress, or whether I am sick (as currently am). He also sadly subscribes to the school of thought of a certain Australian #ECR guru on twitter who advocates for "better supervisory practice" and fast feedback. I just feel like a provider to this person, who fails to acknowledge that I put a disproportionate amount of effort in his supervision.

I have tried delegating tasks to him to get him to grasp supervisory/academic challenges, and have provided him with opportunities to teach/supervise undergrads, to disastrous consequences (students complained about how they were treated as slaves on numerous, separate occasions). I have tried feedbacking light and prompt, but this just increases my workload as the draft just return faster.

I get that it is my duty to support this guy (who also has qualities) through the PhD finishing line, but it is taking its toll, and I am not sure if I have another 12 months of this left in me...

I am not an academic, but have managed a situation with similarities in the past.

Could you block out times in your outlook/ google calendar for reading/ feedback? Allow your students to each book out a certain (and equal) amount of time per week/ fortnight, in advance - e.g. an hour of your time for reading, half an hour for you to write feedback and half an hour of face to face reflection on these points. Don't let him exceed this unless under exceptional circumstances - if he sends you something you can always respond with 'i've booked out an hour next Monday for me to go through this for you, please book a half hour later that week for a follow up meeting'.

This might have the benefit of managing expectations, making him better respect your time, and also keeping workload more consistent across the year.

That's a good idea - I do all my reading for feedback at night and weekends, so I would need to "mock engineer" a fake reading time during weekdays but should be achievable... [his last paper took me 2.5hours to go through carefully though :/ for reading + feedback]

Maybe along with the email detailing you’re new policy, you could issue some guidance about time necessary - eg ‘please note I can give quality feedback at a rate of X words per hour, anything submitted over this will require work to be spread across X number of weeks’.

ok - I will give this a shot. Now - what is a reasonable amount of time to be given for this task, considering that

• I teach ~10-12 hours per week contact time
• have active lab projects on the go (UKRI and H2020)
• approx 6 active PhD students at any time
• approx 3 undergrad in term time and ~6-8 postgrad in the summer
• the usual admin and finance crap that we all deal with (for me, two high-burden committees, plus wrangling the finances of a medium lab group)

I would overall need ~ say 2.5hours for a full paper - but would struggle to split this over two weeks, so instead would do a shallow review first, and a deep review second (hoping that the student addressed and improved all points from the shallow review).

considering whether I should have a small ring-fenced feedback slot every day for 2 hours , or once per week a longer slot. AAARRRGGGGHHH

Once a week is too often a slot for one PhD student. That slot, plus getting a cup of tea, plus you may be a bit tired, might end up taking 2/3 hours. You can't be on it continuously on his work. You have 5 other students, and presumably a whole other lot of stuff which is at least, if not more important.

I'd have the 'starting the third year chat' whereby you try to get the previously quite dependent student to fly solo a bit more. I usually tell them what I'm prepared to do (e.g. wait for a full first draft of a paper, I don't comment on work in progress as it's too bitty, give it one good critique, I won't then re-read it in depth before a final run through of the whole thesis) and what I'm not prepared to do (keep rereading various iterations of everything, read partially complete analyses, tell them what to put in the analysis after an initial scoping exercise).

If you an author on these paper (e.g. second author), I think it's reasonable to have to invest more time than if you are not, and I always clarify if I have time to make that investment and what it will look like first.

Basically, I just agree everything in a very boring, up front way, so that no-one will be misled to what I can offer!

I am also a fan of the 'holding email' technique taught to me by a very good administrator 'Dear Demanding Student, thank's for the first draft of our new paper, I will be reading it and getting back to you within the next two weeks' and then do it when it works for you. In other words, you don't need to jump every time he sends something, just work at your own pace and let him know what's going on.

You could also tackle this directly. He won't be getting immediate replies from journals when he submits articles, will he? No-one else will be jumping to it like you are. So, best to get him used to the fact he's one among many!

Can't you just... have a "within X weeks" reply policy?

Tell him that once & ignore any chase up messages, don't acknowledge each item he sends.

gosh - I soooo wish this was possible.

We are talking about someone who has no qualms asking "have you looked at my version 6 of manuscript X I sent on Saturday" at a Tuesday meeting where a peer is discussing their impending PhD submission the same week. It's like he does not understand that my time is a finite number of hours.

I have once tried to freeze him a bit - he went to complain to his secondary supervisor, who is way out of touch with the project but choose to take his side and started to pester me on behalf of the student, who felt vindicated. He also started posting passive aggresive messages on twitter re. how PhD students at my uni have it "hard" and are ignored and used as workhorse (they are not, their quality of life is miles from mine when I was a student - noone in before 10am, and rarely anyone in after 4.30pm, and everyone has their own desk station with PC and double or triple screens)...

He does have some good sides and is very clever - I have had a constructive relationship with him, with good things coming out of it for the both of us. But this only happens when his terms are "met".

Surely it is normal to limit PhD meetings more than this?!

If I'd seen my supervisor once every fortnight she would have concluded I was struggling badly and failing to develop any independence. To be unable to wait from Saturday to Tuesday is ridiculous. Part of your job is training him as an academic. He needs to learn that you have other priorities than him. Sorry, I know this isn't helpful but I am so angry on your behalf. And I can't believe your institution thinks this is ok or normal.

Part of your job is training him as an academic

Yep - and he won't be an academic - he's admitted this a few months ago, but "wants to get the most out of these high-sacrifice years" [his words]

this means sucking the joy of work and willingness out of me.

My only solution is to "manage" his expectation and bid my time for a timely submission - however, he is prickly and causes me a fair amount of hassle when things don't go his way... [see the 2nd supervisor fuckwitery above]

Therefore the booking time thing appeals, because it's the same for all, and would make his abuse of my time very visible to all - I bet it won't be popular, but it might work (we are talking about someone submitting in Nov 2018, but who has written 5 chapters already and wants feedback on everything NOOOOOWWWWWWWW, because, after all, he gave them to me some weeks ago - nevermind that two of my other students have submitted this fall)

... the lack of independence and neediness went into his formal yearly assessment for his review panel - it counts for nothing, but at least was documented (he, of course, appealed this, and deemed it an unfair judgement of his true commitment to his own progress )

Does your institution not have guidelines on the turnaround for PhD student work? If not, I would look at the ones for Masters students (if your institution doesn't have these either, there are lots that do and put them online), adapt them where needed and then set these as your guidelines for all your PhD students.

He's a bully. A very clever one.

Interesting - I'm coming at this from the other side as a new PhD student. I'm developing a communications plan with agreed turn around times on deliverables (I'm a mature student with a lot of project management experience). So for example; I asked my supervisors 'if I have a due date of 30th January how long in advance do you need a first and final draft to give you time to review?' 'when we email is an acknowledgment required within a given time frame?' etc. It might seem like overkill but in my other world experience I've found that just having the conversation helps manage expectations, and having it documented is gold!

I'd say you need to be firm with your student that whilst he will get a response, it will be on your terms - just make sure you've given him those terms. That's preparation for any future job, whether academic or industry. Lets be honest, as a junior anywhere your boss can sit on anything you submit until when they see fit. That's life.

No advice, but he sounds absolutely horrible. I hope his malleable second supervisor is aware that the undergraduates he taught felt that he treated them like slaves - this is really damning.

This is stressful but you really shouldn't have to deal with it alone. Your uni should have a policy on what PhD students can expect. Plus, you should have back up in your department. Is the other supervisor in a different school?

he is indeed clever - extremely so - and I have no doubt will do very well.

the 2nd superv is a close colleague in my unit - a very senior one...

We do have guidelines (2 weeks turn around) but it s the avalanche I cannot deal with - he would give me a different piece everyday in a close rotation as thus still fit the criterion. Here a chapter, here a manuscript, here an abstract, here a letter of recommendation for an extracurricular class or an award, another chapter, then a revised manuscript. There is no cap on volume...

I ve tried to do verbal on the spot feedback... the irony is that he is not available at the time i do turn up to his office :/ (in lab, at a course, etc).

he is indeed a clever bully and knows the rules of the game...

Ugh! If he's in his third year now, I would definitely advocate the "third year conversation" as above -- I will only give you feedback each time you produce a draft chapter of your thesis. And then stick to it. Say no. Document just how much feedback he has been demanding, and when he inevitably complains, demonstrate that you have gone waaaay above and beyond in the past, and the third year is the point at which you stop hand holding.

But there is also the fairness issue. If you are giving him far more of your time than you are giving the others, then it is not fair. You need to explicitly point that out to him.

That being said, it sounds a little like you've made a rod for your own back by allowing this to go on so long, and you may just have to put up with it until he's gone -- and learn the lesson.

I sympathise!

I see he's already completed 5 chapters (!!!) -- they surely can't be good enough in such a short timescale?

the irony is: they are quite good chapters (in the gd scheme of things). This is someone obviously very driven, ruthless even (which i liked when i hired him in comparison to some of my wet lettuces), but also a bully.

On the point of fairness - he argues the others should push harder!

I usually do push back - but his tricks of co-opting his 2nd supervisor and victim-tweeting and appealing at his review have made me very weary of managing his expectations...

The good thing is he'll be gone relatively soon. If you can get some ok second authorship papers out of the situation (presuming that's the culture in your discipline) then it is not all bad.

I would still have the chat. I wouldn't take kindly to being undermined by another supervisor either and may have a word with them.

You have done nothing wrong, you were right to point this out at review, and I'd do so again if you have annual reviews.

Presumably you won't be writing endlessly positive references for him, a short 'was PhD student from X to Y on topic of Z' will suffice.

I set up a schedule of all meetings with my PhD students and am very clear and very firm about the amount of contact. I set expectations during our very first supervision session, and ask them to sign a learning contract, which acknowledges that this is a period of intense, self directed study. I will only ever read short sections, which need to be what the student thinks is the final draft - any other versions which are constantly being revised will not be considered. I also insist that my students are fully prepared with an outline plan of what they want to discuss when have face to face contact time in order to maximise this period. I have learned the hard way that students like the one you describe (and I have had lots like that!) can take up all of your time with their dependence and being overly needy. As far as the second supervisor (or more) is concerned, I get all mine on side at the very beginning too. Again, experience has taught me that some of the more needy students will keep on asking different lecturers the same question until the get the answer they want.

It sounds harsh, but you have to dig deep in the interests of fairness for all your students.

Also, there are some support groups for female academics on Facebook, where I am sure others can help and advise too. Link here

in Academia Support Network #wiasn

This sounds ridiculous. Do you review each draft more than once? My supervisor has kindly done a LOT of handholding for me this year and even he will read one draft in detail, and then make high level comments unless the draft is significantly reworked.

We also have a detailed one hour meeting once a month (he does the same for all students) where we go over goals for the coming month, bigger picture plan for the year, and detailed reviews of drafts if sent well in advance of this meeting.

Of course he is available for 5 minute meetings / general advice and is a wonderful supervisor but we can’t take up endless amounts of his time and expect anything to get done.

It sounds like your student is a bully, albeit a very intelligent one, and I’d be surprised if the other PhD students weren’t quite resentful of his attitude and the amount of time he takes up. I’d draw much firmer boundaries and definitely stick to - “yes, as I emailed you when you sent me your draft on Saturday, I’ve blocked time next week to go over it and look forward to discussing it in 2 weeks time”. Repeat as necessary.

But please do the rest of the world a favour and knock some of the entitlement out of him - I shudder on behalf of all his future colleagues.

I was entirely the opposite in terms of submitting things, but even so my supervisor sometimes just said no - "No, I don't need to read this again", (she would not reread a draft after it had been editing to fit her earlier comments, for example) or "No, I've got your chapter to look at now, so why don't you ask your 2nd supervisor to look at this, and then you can have feedback for both at the same time" or even just "No I am away/helping other students at the moment" - these are all totally acceptable, and I always recognised them as such (and now that I am an academic myself, I really admire her for being so well-organised and firm about her workload and how to best manage it). I never felt unsupported - indeed with the first option, I felt trusted to be able to revise without needing to be checked up on, which was very encouraging!

I know that the second supervisor has stepped in (totally unhelpfully), and there may therefore need to be a conversation with him as well either in which you say no to him too, or where you explain why the no is being given to the student in this instance, but is just refusing to re-read another version of a draft totally out of the question? Sometimes adults say no! The student is going to have to accept that somewhere.

If I'd seen my supervisor once every fortnight she would have concluded I was struggling badly and failing to develop any independence. To be unable to wait from Saturday to Tuesday is ridiculous. Part of your job is training him as an academic. He needs to learn that you have other priorities than him. Sorry, I know this isn't helpful but I am so angry on your behalf

I'm with LRD here - just reading your account of him is raising my blood pressure.

I think you have to have a frank talk with him, and lay out what you've told us. And tell him that he is far too dependent on you, and that this means he is not capable of doing a PhD as that is primarily a training to become an independent researcher - theoretically, as soon as you pass your viva you are qualified to supervise PhDs yourself.

I think the time is past to be nice. I see my PhD students about once every 3 weeks at the beginning, and then once a month throughout their candidature.

I think I know the "guru" of whom you speak - she talks about seeing PhD students weekly - it's not good advice, they become too dependent.

And don't get me started on how much better PhD students are looked after now, than in the mid-80s when I did mine ...

He sounds like a selfish jerk/dick. Make visible to all around hoew much time he demands. Would he behave in this way to a male academic. I doubt it. Urgh.

No advice for the OP beyond what's already been said, but just to say that there are differences between disciplines. I am also in STEM and see all my PhD students, of all years, once a week; this is also how my own PhD worked. I might make an exception for students who are only writing up.

I see my PhD students about once every 3 weeks at the beginning, and then once a month throughout their candidature.

But this depends hugely on research field. As a scientist, I do see students at least once per week throughout their PhDs. And I write papers with them - it is unusual for students to be single authors in my field - so during the writing of these papers we may well talk several times per week.