Literature Review
2.4 Supervisory relationship
2.4.1 Power in a supervisory relationship
The relationship between a supervisor and a supervisee is considered to be “structurally asymmetrical” and presents issues of power relation (Eley & Jennings, 2005; Green, 2005, p. 154).
Most of the metaphors used in the supervision literature, to capture the supervisor-student relationship, represent or confirm the unseen inherent power dynamics in supervision. Research
39 has shown that power in itself is not a bad thing but, it can be used in both positive and negative ways (Grant, 2008). While the positive use of power in a supervision relationship could enhance student progress in terms of commitment to the thesis task and its quick accomplishment (Firth &
Martens, 2008; Grant, 2008), the negative use of power could have detrimental effects on students in terms of the impact on emotional and psychological well-being (Martinko, Harvey, Brees &
Mackey, 2013; Woolderink, Putnik, van der Boom & Klabbers, 2015). There seems to be a consensus among writers that research students are the most affected by issues of negative power.
Grant (2008) portrays the supervision relationship through the master slave lens and provides some useful insight on one of the ways, among others, that power in a supervisory relationship could manifest itself.
2.4.1.1 The master-slave relation in the supervision context
The account of master and slave was originally given by Hegel (1977 [1807]) in his famous book
“Phenomenology of Spirit” as being the lord and bondsman and was used as an allegory to explain how self-consciousness is birthed through inter-subjectivity. For Hegel, the self only comes to know itself through recognition of the other or through being recognised by the other (Crabb, 2016). This recognition, according to Hegel, necessarily happens through struggle - a life and death
‘struggle’ between two sets of self-consciouness, in which they both ‘create’ and in unity it does
‘alienate’ itself (Crabb, 2016; Grant, 2008). The primary essence of the struggle, however, is not for one self-consciousness to kill the other (as self-consciousness cannot perceive itself in the lifeless other); rather, it is for one self-consciousness through fear of death to surrender to the other (Grant, 2008). This unequal recognition between the two sets of self-consciousness is what Hegel framed as the master and slave relation.
The master-slave dynamic, according to Grant (2008), is in many ways similar to what happens in supervision. Grant argues that the supervisor and student are bound just in the same way that the master and slave are “bound together in an ambiguous and contradictory relation of domination and subordination. Yet, productively, knowledge of the self and the world is motivated by the
40 intersubjective desires mobilized through this relation” (Grant, 2008). Also, like the master who gained recognition and the right to speak in a Gurevitch (2001) interpretation of Hegel, Grant explains that the supervisor, due to his institutional position, has the right to speak in supervision, while the student signifies recognition of the supervisor by employing silence. From this point on, as in the case of the master and slave where the relationship happens through ‘things’ of the world and a triangular master-slave-thing relationship is established, Grant explains that, in supervision, a triangular supervisor-student-thesis relationship is also established. The relationship between the supervisor and student is mediated by the doctoral dissertation/thesis. Although, in line with the Gurevitch (2001, p. 92) interpretation of Hegel, the supervisor may not have any real interest in the ‘thing’ – the doctoral thesis; but, for the students it is a case of personal “blood, sweat, and tears”. As such, repressive silence could enter into the supervisory interactions. Some of the ways that repressive silence can be noticed in supervision interactions, as outlined by Grant (2008, p.
14), include “lack of preparation by the supervisor, interruptions at the office door, trivial feedback, receiving phone calls,” etc.; which students in-turn react to by “avoidance, appeasement, false agreement, or refusal” (Grant, 2008, p. 14). Based on the Gurevitch (2001) classification of repressive silence into ordinary repression and abusive repression, most of the examples of repressive silence identified in the Grant study may be considered as ordinary repression. More horrendous forms of abusive repression happen in a supervision/supervisee relationship, as discussed in the preceding section.
2.4.1.2 Abuse of power in the supervisory relationship
Although power issues have been a subject of consideration in postgraduate supervisory relationships, studies that expose the blatant abuse of power have mostly focused on a workplace setting (Decoster, Camps, & Stouten, 2014; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012). Very few studies have looked into how abusive power relation occurs in supervisory relationship, which some authors refer to as supervisory bullying (Hobman, Restubog, Bordia & Tang, 2009; Williams &
Lee, 1999; Morris, 2011). The Findings in a recent study by Yarwood-Ross & Haigh (2014) that investigated the supervision experience of PhD students in an informal setting (‘in an online postgraduate discussion forum’), that was conducted within the nursing context, listed ‘academic
41 bullying’ as one of the issues that students experience while still in a supervisory relationship.
Other authors draw attention to extreme cases of power misuse including sexual harassment in
‘cross- gender’ supervisory relationships (Bull and Rye, 2018; Christie and Jurado, 2013). Wisker
& Robinson, (2012) note the impacts of extreme instances of power relation as student marginalisation and silence. Lovitts (2001) links power issues that silence students to institutional/departmental structures and practices. A study by McKay, Arnold, Fratzl & Thomas (2008) suggests that institutional structures, culture and practices can support academic bullying.
Borrowing the words of Gillies & Lucey, most students “have witnessed and / or experienced unethical behaviours and misuse of power that is sanctioned and sometimes even compelled by the structures and mechanics of higher education institutions” (Gillies & Lucey, 2007, p. 3). It is against this background of research that my student research explores the doctoral student supervision experiences in the Nigerian context - where institutional structures and practices silences students and supervisors are seen as ‘omnipotent in relation to the student’ (Idoniboye- Obu, 2015).
The next section addresses the collaborative relationship in research supervision and suggests that supervisory relationships, while they are obviously hierarchical and determined by certain institutional norms, practices and culture, are also able to be creatively negotiated.