On doing a PhD, my letter to a colleague

On doing a PhD, my letter to a colleague

(Background to the letter: A colleague and I were having a debate over the email over the obligation of a supervisor. In the email, my colleague told the story of a student who was told that s/he ‘does not meet the supervisor’s standards’ and that he did not want to be his supervisor anymore’. In my colleague’s words,

“It is unreasonable to expect students to do more than they have signed up for when, at the same time, there are supervisors who are not doing their job properly. Our contract with them is, essentially, to supervise to the best of our abilities so that they graduate with the award they applied for. Once we accept a student we cannot tell them to go away because they are not 'up' to doing the 'extras', however valuable they might be for a future academic career. Are we saying that we are not going to cater for students whose career ambitions are not academic or research related?”)

Here’s my reply:

First, I personally think it's irresponsible for a supervisor not to supervise a student to completion if he/she has been accepted as his/her student. By ACCEPTING, the supervisor is DUTY BOUND to ensure the student graduates. By accepting, he implicitly agrees to her qualification and ability to complete a PhD. Unless the student blatantly does nothing, there is no reason that hard work and perseverence would not get him/her the PhD. So I guess you and I are on the same page here. I acknowledge that after accepting a student, the supervisor might find that the student is not as good as he/she thought. My opinion is -well, tough. This comes with the territory. Some students are higher involvement than others. It doesn't change the responsibility. The supervisor will have to put in more effort. Also, students come with a diverse range of abilities - some are better at critical thinking and able to form arguments but perhaps not able to 'go deep'. Some love to read and think but have difficulty writing - as supervisors, we need to train them on where they are inadequate and develop their abilities. This may even include discussion on which methodologies are they more inclined towards etc.

The above only outlines why the EXPECTATIONS are always important to be set out FROM THE BEGINNING, as you quite rightly pointed out. All supervisors have different expectations (even within the code of practice) and it's only fair that the student-supervisor match is sound from the outset. There are supervisors who would supervise a student regardless of why the student wants a PhD. For me, the objectives are very important. I would only want to supervise students who are contemplating a serious career in research and academia. I make that very clear BEFORE I take the student. Here's an example.

Josie (not her real name) application came to me from Jonathan (Departmental Director of Postgraduate Students). I looked at her qualification. Studied her CV and read her proposal. She was a lecturer at her local university - led me to believe that she wants to be an academic. English seemed good. I thought I'll interview her.

I emailed Josie and set up a skype call. We talked for 2 hours. She told me why she wanted to do her PhD - which was to do research and be a world class researcher. She wanted training. She wanted to be an academic, like some of the top academics working in her local university. She wanted to be able to publish in the area she researched in. She wanted to be known for her work.

Without committing myself - I told her that I am only suitable as a supervisor if she wants to be an academic so at least we both know it's what we both want. I told her that I invest a lot of time and effort over and beyond what is required because at the end, I'd like her to be at the same level researching as I do. In other words, I am developing a potential co-author and a good researcher. I then told her something like this (This is my standard 'lecture' to ALL my POTENTIAL students at the interview stage):

"In the UK, the obligation of both the student and the supervisor is to ensure that the dissertation is completed for you to get a PhD award. My opinion is that this is insufficient to be a top class researcher. You may go back to your home country with a PhD and a dissertation, but you might find that you will have difficulty learning how to get papers published, how to be a reviewer, how to reach a level of being an editorial board member etc. The training for a PhD includes the training to be an academic. So you have to ask yourself if you wish to be trained to be an academic. If you think you want to be, so that you have a CV to get you employment in top universities after you graduate, this is something I can help with. With global business schools, business PhDs are called to be of a higher standard. You must be able to publish in international journals, be able to work with businesses, apply for grants/money, teach and do service/admin. Much of it is learnt AFTER the PhD i.e. when you begin life as an academic - but a lot of the foundation, the grounding in terms of attitude, thinking, strategising etc. comes during the PhD. I can offer this BUT you must be prepared for the work. I was trained in a pseudo-US PHD system (Singapore) which is far more rigorous and trains you to be an academic. I do not fully subscribe to the US system, because I think it kills creativity. I do not fully subscribe to the UK system, because it lacks rigor and the graduates do not publish at the same level as the US PhD grads. Mine is more a 'mid-atlantic' system. I will be fair and I believe in open channels of communications so that you can tell me when you feel overworked or stressed and we might gear down for awhile. But you must trust me that I will ensure you will graduate with a PhD and I must be able to trust you that you will put in the work. 3-4 years is a long time to spend with someone and we must make sure we are able to get along and work together - not merely as supervisor-student, but as research colleagues. This is not just your journey - but a shared journey.

If you think this is something you want, we could talk more. If not, I will be very happy to recommend you to another colleague, who perhaps does not share the same sentiments. To be frank, my route is hard - but you can choose to take the hardship during your PhD and I promise you will reap the rewards after. But I acknowledge that not everyone is inclined this way so it's perfectly ok to say no."

Four of my students said yes. 3 others said no - they were happy that I made it clear to them from the beginning though.

(Sorry this is getting to be so long ......)

When I come back to Malaysia, I conduct seminars and lectures at our public universities. I run research workshops for local university lecturers on academic writing, publications etc. Have been doing this for 5 years now. Many already have PhDs - mostly from the UK and Australia. They still have great difficulty publishing in top tier journals, and often, after my workshops - they will lament at the past - that they THOUGHT all they had to do was get a PhD and that would be enough. But post-PhD, they realise too late that their training was inadequate to publish. They want so much to do it, but they don't know how - the hurdles are too great. Coupled with teaching loads and admin, I see so many put aside their research and become resigned and embittered. Increasingly, even in other parts of the world, publications in top tier journals is the only currency for academic esteem and I feel sad. They are all, in their own way, willing to work hard and put in the effort - they just didn't know that they needed to know this before they graduated. Many have said to me - if they only know what they know now, they would go through their PhD in a very different way, with different attitudes. But they didn't realise that the certification was less important that the skills needed to advance their academic careers. I feel the UK system has let many of them down. I am more determined that my students do not go down that path.

I am starting a research clinic in Malaysia, on a probono basis, for these lecturers - every time I come back to Malaysia, I will take appointments (they come with a paper they wrote) and we evaluate the paper, what could be done, where it went wrong etc. They get to see me only once in 6 months - so that they will come very prepared and put in the work. I feel it's the only thing I can do.

Sorry this is long but it's something very close to my own heart. Thought I'll pour it out here since you are talking about doctoral supervisor workshops. I admit not everyone thinks like me and not all PhD students want to pursue academia - but for those who wish to pursue an academic career - I sincerely believe we do not prepare them adequately for the world post-PhD and that grieves me. I can't do anything about the system (although I try!), but I guess I can do it with the students I take. And everytime a student asks me about doing a PhD - I will always advise them to care about skills to do independent research post-PhD, rather than merely the dissertation and the cert.