Student yearning for a positive supervision relationship
6.4 Gift-giving as a way for participants to express yearning for a positive supervision relationship
164 participant was being cautioned. But, the way in which the supervisors compared the participant with his colleagues, could have both positive and negative effects on the participant. It is positive in the sense that he may be challenged to also increase his commitment and dedication to his study.
On the contrary, the comparison may have a negative effect on the participant, as he may develop a negative self-perception; which could limit his academic engagement. It may also engender anger to the point where the supervisor-supervisee relationship becomes strained.
6.4 Gift-giving as a way for participants to express yearning for a
165 is happening here? You need to see how they were just pretending. But nobody can claim he doesn’t know or at least hear about what lecturers are doing here. They collect money from students and all those things…It is even worst when it comes to the supervision of a thing. I think the problem is that, nobody wants people to point at him or her, that, ‘this is the person that made his or her colleagues lose their jobs’; so that, they will not set the person up. …And that is why I told you that, I like your study. If you can come up with some recommendations on how to deal with some of these things, it will help (Doris, 4b).
From the data presented here, gift-giving practices in supervision relationships is not only illegal, but also demeaning to the supervisors, who have attained higher levels in academia and then condescend themselves with illicit practices. The participant laments the fact that some academics/supervisors in her institution feign ignorance of this practice, despite its high prevalence. She, however, reveals that the supervisors that feign ignorance do so for fear of intimidation, labelling and/or set-up by some of the supervisors (probably the majority) who may have themselves been benefiting from the illicit practices, and as such they support the practice of gift-giving. This means that although gift-giving seems to be commonly practiced in the supervision space in the business education programme (i.e., where the data for this study were gathered), it is still a hidden practice and academics dare not talk about it publicly. Thus, the participant expressed concern as to how this hidden practice could be exposed. This means that gift-giving to the supervisor (i.e., bribery) has negative implications for supervision practices.
6.4.2 Gift-giving as a culture-driven practice
One of the conceptions that the participants held in the interviews with regards to a gift-giving practice in supervision, as stated above, is captured in the excerpt below:
You know that giving is part of our culture, and normally, when you travel and come back, people, especially those who are close to you expect things from you. And as an individual, you see it as something you need to do, to make people happy you know. We normally feel that, at least one should buy something, even if it is bread…. So, students can also feel the same way, they could buy some things, just to say ‘sir, I got this for you’ (Oshua, 15b).
166 From the data, it transpires that gift-giving by doctoral students to supervisors seems to be presented as a culture-driven practice, whereby, doctoral students make an attempt at not meeting with their supervisors while being empty-handed, whenever they return from their journeys; i.e., doctoral students feel obliged to present gifts to their supervisors. Notably, therefore, this may be a normal practice in the Nigerian society, as indicated by the participant. But, with regards to supervision, the participant’s view about gift-giving by doctoral students to supervisors raises some suspicion as to whether there are truly no hidden motives behind the gifts that doctoral students offer to the supervisors. Arguably, it is unlikely that doctoral students would be explicit about why they present gifts to their supervisors. Doctoral students could present gifts as a way of pulling their supervisors into a relationship and, thus, doctoral students expect a reciprocal investment, in other ways. Hence, it is likely that the participant here downplayed how doctoral students and/or supervisors could abuse the act/art of gift-giving in the doctoral student-supervisor relationship. The next conception about gift-giving sheds light on the viewpoint presented here.
6.4.3 Gift-giving as a student methodology for manipulating the education system
The above conception is captured in the utterance of one of the participants, thus:
Sincerely speaking I don’t do that. …umm, looking at it as a cultural thing, well, I think is much more than that. Yeah, because, when you look at those students who do things like that, they are mostly people who are not ready to work but want the certificate; in fact, you hardly can see them around. And whenever they come to see their supervisors, they load their cars with different kinds of items…for the supervisor. … Because they are not interested in learning anything, they prefer to be running after supervisors, doing one thing or the other for them, instead of facing their work. But, I think is working for them, yes because, the supervisors could just decide and say this person has been here for a while let’s release him. …yeah, they graduate him; and you know, they know how to manoeuvre their way (Benjy, 2b).
167 Contrary to the earlier view, in his interview transcript, this particular participant frankly and vividly reveals the covert undertone and the reciprocal undercurrent in the practice of gift-giving by students to their supervisors. Although the participant, first and foremost, dissociated himself from the practice, he argues that viewing gift-giving to the supervisor merely as a culture-driven practice, could just be a way of finding an excuse to forgive and also to perpetuate the culture. To support his claim, the participant describes a specific kind of student who is ultimately more concerned with the acquisition of the certificate. It is thus notable that he is of the conviction that undergoing the rigour of the research process, the doctoral student could also bestow gifts on the supervisor sufficiently enough to win the supervisor’s favour. The supervisor in turn, could find illicit ways of manipulating the academic system and pushing the doctoral student through that system. Notably, however, there seems to be a level of misconception as to who engages in the actual intellectual part in the doctoral research work; and whether the supervisor has some powers to do that on behalf of the doctoral student. However, the analysis brings to the fore how the idea of gifts, corruption and throughput are linked and, thus, unmasks gift-giving by doctoral students to the supervisors. This view is further revealed in the next section.
6.4.4 Gift-giving as supervisor extortionism and student exclusion
The sentiments expressed above have been echoed by one of the participants who revealed that gift-giving could be a way of extorting from students and also excluding other students. This conception is supported by the following excerpt:
…in terms of gratification no, they [the supervisors] will tell you. …But, sometimes you help yourself… we call it “shining your eye”…your colleagues will say, please if this man…will not attend to you…why not ‘shine your eye’. But that does not mean that they are corrupt …but then, when you give they will accept. …Some people tend to believe that because they are not doing it that is why they are being unnecessarily punished (Isaac, 9a).
From the presented data of the interview transcript, it transpires that the participant revealed a scenario whereby supervisors who initially declared a lack of interest in receiving gratification from students, turn around and act in a manner that is contrary to their initial declaration.
168 According to the participant, such an attitude by the supervisors makes the students believe that they need to offer something to the supervisors in order for the students to enjoy a quality academic service. As such, gift-giving practices, as revealed by the participants, have become so entrenched that the pidgin English term in Nigeria of “SHINE YOUR EYES”, interpreted as “BE WISE”, implies the offering by students of material bribes to the supervisors, and this has now become a cliché among the doctoral students in the universities. Thus, fee-paying doctoral students find themselves in a compromised position to pay again for the service of their supervisors; and as a result, they suffer manipulation and extortion. Although the participant tends to portray the supervisors as not being corrupt, the practice of student gift-giving to the supervisors has obvious implications for the doctoral students, the supervisors, and also the universities themselves. The implication for the doctoral students who are unable/unwilling to offer bribes (i.e., they are unable to shine their eyes or be wise) to their supervisors is that they are likely to be neglected or treated in an inhumane manner by the supervisors. While some doctoral students (those who offer gifts) are embraced and included, others may be distanced or excluded. This shows that the gift-giving practice in academic supervision could serve as a tool for inclusion/exclusion. Arguably, such a practice renders the doctoral research programme as a costly venture, and as such potentially discourages prospective students from choosing to study in such any Nigerian university. Again, the supervisors who accept bribes from the students do not only encourage unethical practices but they also allow their sense of judgement to be influenced, and as a result they compromise standards and undermine the purpose of the doctorate/PhD. A variation in conception about gift- giving practice is revealed in the next section.
6.4.5 Gift-giving as an act of appreciation
The excerpt below captures the participants’ conception about gift-giving to the supervisors as an act of appreciation as follows:
In my own case, what I did was that… as soon as I finished, I went and bought some gifts for her, do I need to mention the gifts here? [Laughter]… some people don’t consider that, but I knew, it wasn’t right for me to begin to give her gifts while I was still doing the work,
169 because it will send a wrong signal. …Some of our supervisors here, don’t even care about their students; but on her own, she was willing to help, to will make sure that she equip you with all that it takes to do the work. …So, for me, the gift was just my own little way of saying ‘thank you’. …I don’t see anything wrong in that (Abel, 2b).
Here, the participant describes a justifiable and acceptable gift-giving practice as one which is undertaken strictly after the doctoral student has completed his/her student research programme.
Otherwise, the participant is of the view that gift-giving by the students to the supervisors would only create a negative impression or would probably be regarded as outright bribery. In other words, the participant is of the view that the timing for giving gifts is important in revealing the true motive. Hence, gift-giving in this case appears to be undertaken out of the doctoral student’s own volition, as an act of appreciation, given the unfriendly environment whereby other supervisors show little or no concern for their students. This suggests that gift-giving to the supervisors may not have arisen in the first place had the supervisors been supportive. But, it seems that is not the case, doctoral students who receive adequate attention from their supervisors feel almost indebted to those supervisors and as such they reciprocate (show appreciation) by giving gifts. This clearly shows that gift-giving to the supervisors could be the students’ way of developing a friendship and a positive relationship with the supervisors. This probably explains why doctoral students who feel neglected also devise unethical ways of getting the attention of their supervisors, through gift-giving, as described earlier.
This chapter has analysed the findings in category three, pertaining to the student yearning for a positive supervision relationship. The chapter established that the participants expressed their yearning in many ways. Sometimes, the participants revealed their yearning for a positive supervision relationship through the expression of disappointment because of unmet expectations, exclusion and negative criticisms from the supervisors. Also, the findings showed that some of the participants expressed satisfaction with the supportive roles played by the supervisors which entailed pastoral care and support, encouraging self-efficacy of students, as well as the joint effort between the supervisors and the doctoral students in ensuring that positive relationships remain intact. Again, the findings revealed issues of power inherent in the supervision relationship which the participants considered to be positive as it exposed the many ways in which some of the
170 participants employed the practice of gift-giving to navigate relationships with their powerful supervisors.