Student yearning for a positive supervision relationship
Chapter 7 Discussion
7.2 Supervision as apprenticeship-like/power relationship
One of the ways in which the participants in this study experienced research supervision, as the finding has revealed, was that it was experienced as a highly hierarchical/asymmetrical/power- laden relationship. This experience, for the most part, created in the participants a sense of self that is almost powerless in relation to the supervisors and at the same time it was rewarding for some of the participants. The finding aligns with previous research that identified traditional-academic discourse of supervision - whereby the supervisor wields so much power as a disciplinary expert and the student obediently submits to the training of the supervisor (guru) to be able to acquire disciplinary knowledge (Grant, 2005b). ‘Metaphors’ of apprenticeship, discipleship, oedipal family relationship and paternalism were commonly used to foreground such power imbalance in supervision relationships (Lee & Green 2009; Mackinnon, 2004; Yeatman, 1995). This PhD thesis adds to this by revealing another powerful metaphor that was employed by one of the participants who portrayed the doctoral student as a suckling-goat, and the supervisor as a god (section 4.3). In this relationship, the participant revealed that doctoral students must humble themselves, honour and probably worship supervisors (gods) to be able to receive guidance with regards to their studies. This finding resonates with Idoniboye-Obu’s (2015 p. 256) view that “compared to lecturers in other parts of the world, the Nigerian lecturer is more or less omnipotent in relation to the student”. The strong power issues revealed in the finding suggests a high possibility for the doctoral student (suckling-goat) to feel powerless in relating to a super-powerful supervisor (god), that s/he may simply take information/ideas/instructions from the supervisor as commands that needed to be acted upon uncritically. The system of learning that creates such docility in students has been associated with the banking concept of education (Freire, 1970; 2005) where students become mere receptors of information provided by their teachers (supervisors). This approach to learning has been highly criticised for its inadequacy in evoking critical consciousness and stimulating intellectual growth in students (Micheletti, 2010). In the supervision context, such could create problems of ownership of the thesis/ideas/arguments (Ghadirian et al., 2014) as students may be denied the opportunity to make autonomous decisions and exercise independent thoughts in writing their thesis. As such, the goal of pursuing the PhD could be reduced to mere
177 completion of thesis and obtaining the degree without acquiring high-level critical thinking skills that the doctoral study is meant to inculcate.
This bears out the Waghid (2006, p. 428) concern about some doctoral students he related with in his institution, who are being driven by certification motives rather than by engaging in critical inquiry and academic debates which are fundamental in fostering ‘authentic learning’ or debates as explained by the author. This kind of learning, he believes, can be enhanced through a supervision relationship that is empowering and liberating for students (Lee, 2012). Although the kind of learning that happens in supervision is also affected by factors associated with the doctoral students - their experiences, beliefs, personal characteristics, for example, lack of confidence (Khene, 2014; Wilson-Strydom, 2011). My PhD thesis also confirmed that the participants’ level of preparedness, awareness of the demands of doctoral study, competency and experience in conducting research affected the way in which doctoral students engaged in the supervision relationship. For instance, the participants with a low level of preparedness and who lacked adequate awareness of the demands of doctoral research tended to depend more on the supervisors (section 4.3.2.1). However, empirical evidence shows that the supervisors can empower and enable students to negotiate liminalities (i.e., the quality of ambiguity or disorientation that occurs in the middle stage of rites) in their learning journey and to encourage high-level engagement and exchanges between the supervisors and the doctoral students (Fataar, 2005; Khene, 2014; Lee, 2011; Waghid, 2006). These authors/writers tend to believe that supervision is not only concerned with providing intellectual guidance to students but is also concerned with the “complex negotiation of the psychological and affective dimension of the student’s personality make up”
(Fataar, 2005, p. 40). For instance, Waghid (2006) in his study found that by being humane he was able to liberate his study subjects who were initially limited by their past apartheid experience and wrong notion about supervision as being patriarchal in nature (where students do not question supervisors’ authority) and encouraged them to develop confidence and assert themselves in the supervision relationship. This suggests that the supervision approach that supervisors adopt is critical in diagnosing barriers to doctoral students’ learning and empowering doctoral students.
178 With regards to the supervision approach, one of the findings in this thesis showed that the supervisors’ socialisation is critical to their style/approaches to supervision. Participants revealed that despite the government’s emphasis on fast completions, their supervisors find it difficult to implement the government’s new policies on supervision which are contrary to their own socialisation (section 4.3.2.3). This finding supports earlier research findings and discussions that the supervision style/approaches that supervisors adopt is likely to be influenced by their ‘past experience of supervision as students’ (Bitzer, 2010, p. 24; Delamont, Atkinson & Parry, 2000;
Lee, 2008; Okeke, 2010). Notably, the current finding raised concerns as to why supervisors have remained conservative in their approach to supervision despite changes in government’s policy.
One reason for this could be based on the assertion by Okeke (2010) that Nigeria is not quick to align its educational policies and practices to international good standards. The changes in the higher education landscape have made most advanced countries to prioritise re-training and re- socialisation of supervisors to keep pace with changes and development in higher education supervision context (Manathunga, 2007). In Nigeria, the case seems different, as research evidence shows that “most institutions of higher learning in Nigeria lack staff development programmes for training and re-training of staff” (Asiyai, 2013, p. 167). It is unlikely that the supervisors who have not been exposed to modern pedagogical practices (including the supervision process) would adopt modern approaches to supervision. Such supervisors are likely to continue to supervise students in a conservative apprenticeship-like/power manner they themselves have been socialized into. The next section discusses the several normative practices which are commonplace in the supervision context of this study.
7.2.1 Institutional entrenched practices in admission and supervisor nomination
Usually, research supervision happens in the complex context of institutional systems, structures, procedures, infrastructural support, equipment and resources (Delany, 2008, p. 3; Green, 2005;
Kelly, 2009). This study’s finding with regards to institutional entrenched practices sheds light on how the procedures for admission and supervisor nomination could exclude doctoral students and
179 place them at a disadvantaged position from the point of entry into the university and why that could constitute a challenge for supervision. The account of the participants showed that their institutions practice a system whereby admissions into doctoral business education programme are tied up with the nomination of the supervisor. While the institutions allow supervisors to participate in the supervisor-supervisee pairing process, they completely deny doctoral students participation in this process. This finding chimes with Okeke,’s (2010) observation that there is acute neglect of students’ involvement at the initial stage of admissions and supervisor-supervisee selection in higher education institutions in Nigeria. A similar practice where the department allocates supervisors to students has also been reported in Britain (Philips & Pugh, 2000). Contrary to this practice, several other studies argue for the students’ personal involvement in selecting their supervisors (McAlpine & Turner, 2012), as supervisor selection is considered to be an important aspect of the supervision arrangement (Edwards, Aspland, O’Leary, Ryan, Southey & Timms, 1995, p. 6). An earlier study suggests that students who are involved in the selection of their supervisors tend to be more satisfied and progress well in their studies (Ives & Rowley, 2005).
This partly explains the Philips & Pugh (2000, p. 11) view of students’ personal choice of supervisors as “the most critical step” in their supervision journey.
The fact that most of the participants in this thesis revealed that they would prefer to be included in the supervisor-supervisee selection process if given the chance, suggests that they want their interest to be taken into consideration and their voices heard. On the contrary, the institutions seem to place doctoral students at the mercy of entrenched practices that they are not likely to contest should they be uncomfortable with the supervisors they have been assigned to. Little wonder that despite the unsatisfactory supervision relationship revealed in this study, no participant opted for a change of supervisor which is an option that postgraduate students in other contexts can resort to (Golde, 2000). The implication of such closed system in terms of admission and supervisor nomination that silenced doctoral students is that the institutions may have structurally set the scene for power play in supervision. This seemed to be the case as most of the participants revealed that their supervision encounters were characterised by one form of domination/intimidation or the other. One of the participants indicated this by saying ‘…he will always make you know that you are just a student…’ (Section 4.3.1.1). Probably, those supervisors that oppressed doctoral students were
180 aware of their institutional power and position in relation to the marginal position of the doctoral students. An earlier study by Grant (2008) finds that supervisors, to establish their voices as masters in the supervision space and thus gain recognition from students, are likely to silence students. This thesis adds to the limited body of work that describes the processes involved in supervisor nomination for doctoral students (Ives & Rowley, 2005). This thesis also provides some insights into an important question asked by a commentator in an earlier study by Grant &
Manathunga (2011, p. 353) that: “To what extent does context and structure enter into supervision?” Other implications of the institutional normative practices will be discussed further in subsequent sections in this chapter.
7.2.2 Nepotistic behaviour compromises the integrity of the research endeavour
The department constitutes an immediate environment for doctoral students and as such the culture atmosphere and practices in the department contribute to the experience that the doctoral students receive. The findings in this PhD student research show that favouritism by administrative staff with regards to scheduling defence dates, and student funding of meals for the examination panel members were some of the issues that doctoral students grapple with in their university department.
The participants’ accounts showed that favouritism occurs when some administrative staff at the department suppressed the right of students to favour their preferred candidates in terms of fixing defence dates. Thus, doctoral students who are under pressure to quickly secure a date and move on with their student research are encouraged to offer bribes to administrative staff. This finding not only exposed the departments’ poor scheduling system and administrative weakness, but also showed how this practice created another form of social exclusion as administrative staff that derive benefits from favouring some students may deliberately frustrate students that do not offer bribes and thus delay their progress. Arguably, if the system was being run effectively, such unethical practice (bribery) may not have arisen in the first place and all the students would receive adequate attention.
181 An earlier study in investigating the challenges for better thesis supervision found that student engagement in the act of lobbying, to influence departmental heads to assign lenient supervisors to them, resulted in inequality in the supervisor-supervisee pairing in the department (Ghadirian et al., 2014). Another study identified administrative issues with regards to how delays in the allocation of supervisors constitutes setback to student progress (Heeralal, 2015). The novel finding in this PhD thesis differs, in that this thesis has revealed an act of unethical practice as perpetrated by the administrative staff in four Nigerian universities, in collaboration with the students in the departments, and which previous studies have not fully described.
With regards to the student funding of meals for the examination panel members during defence presentations, the participants’ accounts showed that the department placed the responsibility of catering for meals for the panel members on presenting students. The fact that the departments pair students to share the costs of the meals was a clear indication that the departments are aware of the financial implications. This finding confirms the Okeke (2010) personal experience and observation that students catering for meals for panel members during their research work defence is an entrenched practice in Nigerian higher education institutions, which show a lack of consideration for fee-paying students. The department may not have considered that such a practice could create an avenue for doctoral students who are financially buoyant to provide better meals for the panel members, than those students who do not have the financial ability to provide fine meals. Notably, therefore, the attention of the students may be shifted away from undertaking thorough student research work, to appeasing panel members with expensive meals to influence their judgements. Given that any attempt to manipulate the panel would undermine the standard of theses produced in the department/university (Okeke, 2010). Student funding of meals during thesis defence represents a potential threat to the quality of feedback that students receive during defence and the entire goal of the defence exercise is not only affected, but is also ruined.
Also, considering how favouritism by administrative staff and student funding of meals could exclude and delay student progress may add to our understanding of concerns raised in earlier studies, that postgraduate students in the Nigerian context could stay excessively long periods as
182 PhD students, and in some cases up to twenty (20) years (Agu & Kayode, 2014; Ekpoh, 2016;
Duze, 2010). One of the participants that reported being delayed for four (4) months to share the cost of catering for meals for the panel members with other students, was a typical example of an unnecessary delay that resulted from such departmental practices. This seems obvious since doctoral students do not usually work at the same pace as some other students who are more dedicated and committed. Unnecessary delays could also keep doctoral students away from their families and friends for so long that their social lives could be affected. Consequently, students may become so isolated and they may also lose motivation for their studies. Such delays have costs implications at the national, institutional and personal levels (Whitman, Halbesleben & Holmes, 2014). The finding brought to the fore the detrimental structure that may have been operating unchecked within the higher education system in Nigeria, which the institutions are probably unaware of, or otherwise.
7.2.3 Positive and negative effects of power issues in the supervisee / supervision relationship
Although issues of power in the supervision relationship are mostly portrayed in a negative light, the finding in this study revealed that power could also result in positive impacts on doctoral students. Similar findings regarding the potential for power relationship in the supervision space to be both rewarding and disturbing have been noted (Grant, 2008; Schulze, 2012). In her study, that considers supervision as a master-slave relationship, Grant (2008, p. 23-24) seems to suggest that the rewarding aspect of the hierarchical supervision relationship may ironically be derived from the “painful moments of masterfulness on the part of [the] supervisor” that gets the student to accomplish the thesis. This study provides further insight into how “painful moments of masterfulness” of the supervisors turned out to be rewarding for some of the participants. An instance of that was revealed by one of the participants in my PhD research, who indicated that working with a strict and harsh supervisor enabled her to become dedicated and committed to getting her thesis task accomplished (section 4.3.1.1). In other words, the participant feels that if her supervisor were to be tolerant/humane, that is, lenient and easy-going, she probably may relax