Student yearning for a positive supervision relationship
6.2 Participants’ expression of yearning for a positive relationship
6.2.1 Participants’ conception about developing a positive relationship with supervisors
not forget about the doctoral student completely. This seems to be a sort of unwritten rule for getting the attention of the supervisors. From the data, it appears that part-time doctoral students who shuttle between work and study, and travel hundreds or thousands of kilometres to go to consult with their supervisors, spend their time and money and often risk their lives in the African- travel- setting process are the worst affected by such a disturbing rule. Notably, they are likely to be neglected, and could go without guidance if they are not able to pay constant courtesy visits to their supervisors. When that happens, it would elongate the time to complete the student research programme. As such, the participants perceive their supervisors as having a total disregard for their personal contexts, and no sense of appreciation of the harsh realities of the student’s life. The implication of the participants’ perceptions of their supervisors as being insensitive, distant and disconnected, is that they may not be able to trust their supervisors and that would affect the relationship that might exist between them. Also, the bid to earn the supervisors’ favour could degenerate into potential bribery and corruption practices that are unethical, and that could affect the quality of thesis that the supervisees produce.
6.2.1 Participants’ conception about developing a positive relationship with supervisors
The relationship between the supervisors and the doctoral students in this research, happens to be a continuous one which extends from undergraduate and/or masters’ study to the doctoral research programme. The biographic information provided by one of the participants, in the excerpts below, captured the view, thus:
153
…I had my first degree at [University ‘A’] and that was completed in 2005. …my second degree was in the same university … …was completed on the first December, 2008. I started my doctoral study 2010/2011 session… I have completed coursework. Presently, I’m doing my research work…with the same supervisors… (Naomi, 14a).
The data presented here reflect the educational trajectory of all the participants in this research. It shows that the participants are already conversant with the departmental and institutional contexts in which they undertake their student research programmes. The implication is that they would have a smooth transition to doctoral student research programmes, as captured in the excerpt below:
…when I was doing my masters she picked interest in my work… …So when I came back for my PhD, she…was the one who advise me on the area to work on… …much later when the work took its full swing and almost winding up…she became more interested in…
talking about my personal issues. …we became more or less mother and son at the end of the day… but at the beginning she was really business-like, no personal issues… At first, if I don’t have the means to do some things she may not bother … but later she would …she will even give me some money… (Gabriel, 7a).
Having been supervised by the same supervisor during a master’s degree, the participant here revealed that it was easy for him to agree with his supervisor and subsequently quickly settle on a research topic for his doctoral research programme. This means that an established positive supervision relationship with the supervisor is likely to endure and continue into future studies.
Notwithstanding, the participant also revealed the supervision approach/style that his supervisor adopted at varying stages of his study. As shown in the data, the supervisor seemed to adopt a strictly task-focused approach at the initial stage of the supervision relationship. Probably, the supervisor did not want relationship building to come in the way of the thesis production at that stage. That may explain why the supervisor only became solicitous, caring and was effecting financial assistance/support towards the completion stage of the student research programme. As a result, the participant developed a deep sense of belonging, which he referred to as a ‘mother- son’-type of bonding. This suggests that the kind of relationship that could exist between doctoral students and their supervisors is determined by the stage at which the doctoral students are inserted
154 into their student research. The linear way in which supervision relationship is believed by the participants to progress/develop - from being thesis-focused to being more interpersonally focused, is also an indication that the supervisors are less likely to respond to the personal and emotional needs of the doctoral students, at the initial stage of their programme. The implication is that the doctoral students may feel uncared-for and they could abandon the programme.
A variation in the way in which the relationship developed between the participants and the supervisors, is captured in the excerpt below:
… I came back again for my PhD… I am now surprised at the relationship. …he is no more as hash as he used to be. …the relationship is so fine now that I am embarrassed whether he is the same man that would tell me all kinds of things in those days. …he said they give certificate in character and in learning. So he will…shake you to really know your character. …He was challenged at my attitude…the way I reacted to his harshness was what embarrassed him …because I wasn’t shaking… (Doris, 4a).
While the participant in an earlier quotation seems to enjoy a positive relationship in the supervision relationship of her doctoral degree, the participant in the above transcript reveals a case of intimidation and harassment and abuse of power during her masters’ degree. This participant now shows her amazement regarding the improvement of her supervision relationship with the supervisor. Although the participant seems to attribute this to her strength of character, confidence and resilience, several other factors may have played out. One reason for the improved relationship could be that due to the extended period of the ongoing relationship (from masters’
degree to doctoral research studentship), both the participant and her supervisor may have gained a level of understanding about each other’s behaviour, style of supervision/learning, expectations, and so on. It is also possible that the participant has become matured in dealing with critiques, as is also indicated by one of the other participants, thus:
…actually, it was later that we were able to understand his wisdom in interfering so to say in our submissions (James, 10a).
The participant has revealed here that, initially, he lacked an understanding with respect to receiving feedback from his supervisor; as he simply resented his supervisor. Hence, if his
155 supervisor was not able to diagnose and address the problem, it may eventually affect their relationship. This clearly shows that the doctoral students’ maturity in knowledge contributed to the development of positive supervision relationship.