Is this normal in academia?? Am I missing something?

[Fishoutofbowl]

Hi, just looking to pick some academic brains about something, I’m just a student so hope I’m not intruding here!

Basically, I’m a masters student doing a study for my dissertation that was meant to be partly questionnaire data, partly an experimental section. The experimental part uses a particular piece of equipment that Im not confident using.I emailed my supervisor today to say that I don’t feel confident using it or analysing it and would rather not include it in my study. I’m going to collect more questionnaire data and adapt the experiment so it doesn’t include this equipment.
She said this was totally fine for my study and would work well but asked me to still collect data using the equipment on a large number of participants (more than I have so far), because she needs it for a grant for a separate study. Am I missing something here about why I should do that?

And- linking the mark of a dissertation to whether a student helped out with unpaid work is outrageous. Luckily we do not first mark our student's dissertations at Masters level so that someone more independent can assess the academic quality, not how much the person sucked up the donkey-work. If the second mark was considerably lower than the first, it would go to a third marker.

Not that this makes any difference as it's a moral issue, but the OP has paid for her Masters so the fact it takes up the supervisor's workload is neither here or there. In our institution, having Masters students is optional but counted in the workload so there's no need to feel peeved if they change topic or want to do something outside the original plan (in fact, I'd recommend they change it to make life easier unless training on this equipment is essential to the course). It's their Masters, they've paid for the course to be delivered, not to act as an unpaid RA for another grant.

I work in academia too. Times have changed, but many academics are still catching up. Let’s assume (until proved otherwise) that your supervisor has your best interests at heart and is assuming that you want a career in research. However if that proves not to be the case then don’t feel bad about getting it sorted. Best of luck with your project and I hope your supervisor is receptive and behaves appropriately.

Thanks for sharing that about the mark thespring, I was really worrying about comments made about that.

Fish you may want to check this at your institution, sounds like some people here do first mark their own dissertations (which is NOT a good practice anyway, we don't even do that for undergrads). It should be double-marked anyway.

If this is all over email, I might make an appointment to discuss further. It may be your supervisor imagined you'd like to do this joint project as an opportunity (that's the charitable interpretation) and hadn't got around to offering you the pay/co-authorship that usually goes along with data collection. If you start from the misunderstanding perspective rather than going in all guns blazing, it might work better.

Fish no I genuinely can't see that anything is upsetting. Nobody is criticising, just going with what we've been given bar my rant on consumerism which was not about you.
How long have you had this supervisor? Is her attitude one of 'yeah I've got to have you'? Is she helpful?
I think if this relationship is new, then the better move could perhaps be to request a change of supervisor.
When I did mine we chose supervisors based on the research topic, and you were expected to have read that academic's work and cite them in the background and literature review. A lot of the process was them training your way of thinking, developing perspectives on the shared interest. It is a relationship on which the student comes to rely and benefits from. It doesn't sound from your last post that this is the case. I have not been saying that you should skivvy away for someone who doesn't even like you. My MA supervisor pulled the rug from under me, I had a high first, prizes, awards, thought I was good. She broke me before rebuilding me-but it was worth it. However she did want to teach me, she was guiding my work and she did make me achieve the very best I could. If this isn't you, requesting a change is perfectly acceptable and would perhaps be easier than saying no to the extra work.

Just to clarify, I don't offer co-authorship to my interns/post-grads if they only do a bit of data collection, but I do pay them and thank them in the acknowledgements.

My impression from Chav’s comments is they were concerned you might not show the breadth needed for top marks by cutting part of your study, rather than implying your supervisor would dock marks for not helping. You should be fine, you sound confident that you have enough! Sounds like you planned an over ambitious project in the first place and are sensibly cutting it back now. You can only do what you can do in the time. I would have liked to do more for mine but it doesn’t matter how perfect it is if you can’t get it finished in time.

OP
Can people really not see why I might find some of the comments on this thread upsetting? I said they were patronising and snide, because they can across that way to me, not because I can’t be criticised.

That’s exactly how they came across to me too. Please just ignore the,. I would! 😌

Typo... them

partly questionnaire data, partly an experimental section.

This doesn't read like a small part of your dissertation. It reads like half or at least a substantial part.

I don't think this is a case of students doing unpaid work to benefit a researcher. Theses, MSc or PhD, tend to combine the interests of the student as well as the supervisor. There will have been a reason why your supervisor included the experimental bit. Even if it was for selfish reasons, but it would benefit you. The thing is that you didn't seem to have discussed this with your supervisor neither when accepting the project nor now. She might have preferred that you did more of the experimental bit instead.

Do talk to her and try to reach an agreement, and seek her opinion on how your project should be conducted, and for what. You may think you know it all now and what's best for your project, but it's easy for students to overestimate their own knowledge over supervisor's experience. Do talk to her, put forward your concerns and listen to her opinion and suggestions before deciding anything.

And
My impression from Chav’s comments is they were concerned you might not show the breadth needed for top marks by cutting part of your study, rather than implying your supervisor would dock marks for not helping.
This.

Ok, I’m going to collect more questionnaire data and adapt the experiment so it doesn’t include this equipment, I’m keeping the experimental part, but I didn’t ask about this, didn’t seek advice on it. I specifically say in my OP that I spoke to the supervisor about it and she said it was fine. She is the one who initially suggested it might be cute.I already said that too. It’s literally a piece of equipment that I’m not using, I’m not thinking I know it all? Anyway, it doesn’t really matter, I’m going to speak to the supervisor tomorrow.

Was 'Cute' a typo OP?
I wish you luck for tomorrow.

I mostly wanted to know from this thread if this kind of request was to be expected/normal so I knew how to pitch my response. I know some people have disagreed but this thread seems to show it is pretty much, which is helpful to me in how I approach it with her.

Sorry yes cute was a typo? I meant cut

Apologies, you did say she initially suggested that this aspect might have to be dropped as various parts of the study make it difficult to work

This is what I don't get, though. Didn't you discuss priorities when you started the project?
To clarify it, does she want you to stay on for extra time and do the part with the equipment?

I'm sorry, but your posts weren't particularly clear on how you reached a decision.

Yes, talk to her. As you've seen from the thread, it's often easy to miss meanings when exchanging messages. It might have read like a demand from her, when it could just be a manner of speaking.

Lol. If you had managed to get a supervisor to refer to a research design as cute I had underestimated you.
It is to an extent. But not to directly use for a grant proposal, since the applications are quite rigorous and extensive. Rather your work supports a current project as a sideline, eg if she was doing an RCT, and your dissertation used patient experiences as a supportive small scale qualitative study. However for that to happen serious ethics permission would have been sought. It would be your work, moulded. Not nothing to do with your work. Something to benefit you, even if only as research practice. I think this needs clarification.
Probably should have stuck to that sentence in the beginning....

Ok, I need to clarify some of these points with her tomorrow, thanks. She specifically said that she thought it was fine to drop it in my study, that my proposed adaptions were fine (she advised slightly simplifying them) and then that she needed the data from the equipment herself for a grant, with specific details of when and from whom i might collect it. I think people are right that she wanted it from the beginning but she never said that, and she did say a while ago that it could be best to cut, I’ve just been reading old emails to check.
There are some logistical reasons to drop it as well from my dissertation. Overall I feel happy that from my point of view I’m right to get rid of it and supervisor agreed, so I’m not sure what to think about these points.

OP, stand your corner and ignore the other comments. Your supervisor is clearly taking advantage of you, and you need to make it clear to her that you won't take on her unpaid work for free. She can do it herself. She is paid to supervise you. You are doing a favour by keeping her in a job, not the other way round.

@chavtasticfirebanger you are coming across as extremely patronising. Which institution/discipline are you at out of interest? I'd want to avoid that for sure. People who exploit students and ECRs is what makes academia so toxic.

And- linking the mark of a dissertation to whether a student helped out with unpaid work is outrageous.

Of course that would be ridiculous.

But giving a lower mark because a smaller range of methods were used is certainly normal, particularly if the extra method would bring new depth/insights to the project.

I don't think OP can post on an academic board, with part of the story, and part coming out through other posts, and expect everybody to jump in and take his/her side unequivocally. There are many comments with sensible advice such as

You may think you know it all now and what's best for your project, but it's easy for students to overestimate their own knowledge over supervisor's experience.

It might have read like a demand from her, when it could just be a manner of speaking.

Meanwhile comments like this:

She is paid to supervise you. You are doing a favour by keeping her in a job, not the other way round.

remind me of how toxic the UK higher education climate is and how glad I am to leave it.

user2222018 The OP has clarified she's checked the dropping of the minor experimental side with her supervisor, her supervisor agrees with it and thinks the streamlined version of the project is better. I would get that clarified in an email, OP.

I just can't understand why it would be ok for the OP to work on a separate grant project for free. There really isn't a way to make that ok. Justifications like the lecturer is giving up her time, you have to have congruent research interests (nope, many of my colleagues supervise 10 Masters a year and don't get only students they have congruent interests in, they are taught Masters not on some type of research apprenticeship), the supervisor might have only agreed if you do this experiment (my students change their minds like they change their clothes, to coin a phrase, it's their dissertation, I guide them towards solid proposals but I don't dictate what data they collect), it's all just excuses. Grant-bodies give money for data collection, it's funded in the grant, you don't then get a student or several to produce the experiments for you on the side of their own research.

This has been an illuminating discussion for me, but probably not in a good way. There is a huge problem with internships in and outside academia which are unfunded and so preferentialise those with rich parents/house in London to live in. I get offers from students around the world offering to come and work with me for free. I don't let them! All internships and research work should be paid the minimum wage, or preferably the living wage or above. It's really simple. The only exception I can think of would be a short work experience of a few days say shadowing an academic, or getting trained in running the experiments. But to specify a number of participants to run- that's work, off a grant, and not to offer pay would be exploitative.

OP just check you aren't being offered this as work, perhaps the supervisor felt you would benefit from training in this method and could do it additionally, I often pay good UG/PG to do extra on grants if I'm running a bit behind.

User, I didn’t give part of the story so that people would take my side (It’s not about taking sides, I was looking for advice). Perhaps the OP wasn’t as clear as it could have been but it certainly wasn’t intentional. I don’t object to people offering different opinions, but comments such as the one you’ve highlighted about knowing it all, came across as somewhat insulting. Also missing the point of my OP, since I didn’t ask whether people thought the methods were ok. No one can tell from the information in this post whether they are ok or not so don’t understand why that was jumped on.
The tuition fees thing is not really relevant tbh, I brought it up only to point out that I’m not a funded research student.

Thanks spring, it’s been an illuminating discussion for me too! I like the supervisor and she has been helpful for me, but she hasn’t done that as a favour has she? .
I’m just going to talk to her today, and clarify some points mentioned here. this isn’t a lack of dedication to my degree as someone said earlier, it’s that in times when I’m not working on my degree, I’m usually working, I don’t have spare time ( and the course is my first concern, I do well, but I have to stay alive too).

I just can't understand why it would be ok for the OP to work on a separate grant project for free.

That wouldn't be OK. But it is really not clear to me whether this is the whole story.

Like many academics, I have had experience of masters students handing in drafts of their theses which they grade very differently to academics. A few years ago, I received a draft from a student. The student through this was distinction material. Two reviewers thought it was 50-55% - the current study hadn't gone into enough depth, and to bring up the mark additional research methods would be needed.

It was proposed by one reviewer that the student work with one of their PhD students to learn the additional research method, as it was related to the PhD student's project. The student was reluctant to spend any more time on their thesis and in the end went with a version of their original thesis - which after three separate markings (including external) indeed came out with a mark just over 50%.

I can imagine said student posting something quite similar to OP - perhaps that student got the impression that they were being asked to do "unpaid research" on funded research projects. The reality was they were being given the chance, with a lot of help and "unpaid time" from two academics, to salvage their dissertation mark.

This may well not be the story of OP. But this is an anonymous posting board. We don't know all the details and so we can't jump in with unequivocal support.

I agree that some pps have taken a very extreme opposite side and come across very harshly. But it is equally insulting to say that academics should be grateful that a dissertation student is "keeping them in a job".

I agree that these things can be misunderstood, and a face to face conversation is desirable.

However, if the interpretation that the supervisor was offering the student the chance to better their mark then a) they wouldn't have agreed to dropping the experiment from the Masters and b) they would have recommended training to learn the experimental technique, not specified an exact amount of participants they need to get!

But that story is totally projection? I’m not going to share the actual emails with you for obvious reasons but as a relatively intelligent native English speaker, I’m 100% confident that’s not what being said. I have given you the whole story, I’m not sharing details about the topic or field for reasons which I think are clear.
I appreciate that comments about tuition fees keeping someone in a job are hurtful for academics, I didn’t say that. I do think the tuition fees are relevant from a students point of view though, not in the sense of paying anyone’s wages, but it is a massive financial investment.