3.2 Confessions of a doctoral supervisor: valuing interdependence  (Page 6/12)

Real-Life Dilemmas Involving Ground Rules

Real-life social conflict and change is endemic to any student’s doctoral journey and group experience, just as it is for any faculty mentor. Struggle and resistance between professors and students can occur at the developmental juncture involving interdependence. In the WIT group, some members while talented and kindhearted do not necessarily respond in a timely manner to my requests that directly involve their own progress and success. For example, regarding the invitations to the WIT meetings and student defenses, those not attending sometimes preface that they will have to make sacrifices (e.g., take time away from family or friends or athletics); when present, they less frequently have the reading done in advance, which is apparent because there are no handwritten notes on their materials (our practice is to forward marked up copies to students whose work we are responding to) and because they interject comments of a general nature only.

One WIT informed me about 2 years ago that s/he would no longer be attending the WIT sessions; when I asked why, s/he responded that s/he no longer had anything to learn from anyone and that s/he could complete the program without the group’s support, with my ongoing help merely implied. This same individual has been in candidacy for many years and is still stuck on completing the final chapters of the dissertation. In this case, ground rules 1–6 focused on group learning and sharing were discarded in one broad sweep. Ironically, it appears that this student’s need to assert independence by discarding the very support of the group that had enabled momentum to be sustained not only prolonged program completion but also increased the odds of attrition.

I have noticed that some of the WITs are either more competitive than others or are simply more transparent about being so. Another student who was stuck in limbo for years only started to get back on track when one of the WITs, who started at the same time, successfully completed the dissertation. After years of not showing up to the meetings in my home, this individual suddenly arrived well prepared with data collected and organized, as requested, the completed survey data had been arranged in easy-to-read tables. However, this individual had used another’s exact table format and data arrangement to organize the results. Because other students’data templates had been made available prior to this instance, it seems more likely that this individual was finally moving ahead for the reason that peers who had entered the program in more recent years were already crossing over the finishing line.

Someone else resisted adhering to ground rule 12, often not cc’ing me on official correspondence. Rule 12 came about because I had noticed during my“green”days of doctoral supervision that university faculty and staff are apt to respond more quickly to students when the professor(s) involved is copied on important correspondence—this rule of thumb generally functions as an easy formula for protecting students, getting their inquiries heard, and moving them forward. It is obviously easier for professors to follow up where necessary if they have been copied onto the message by the student, which makes their association clear and relationship public. Because of this student’s inconsistency, I reinforced the need to copy me on official university correspondence relevant to my function as dissertation supervisor me. In one such instance, while we were in the process of creating this individual’s program of study and committee form, we found ourselves grappling with who the fourth committee person would be. I suggested that we seek special credentialing of a district superintendent, someone my student had studied with and someone with whom I respected. I indicated what needed to be done regarding emailing the staff member in charge who would outline the steps for us to follow. When my student got home, this individual asked that I write my request in an email, which I immediately did. Then my request was used to create a very long and windy email that distracted from the point at hand. When asked to edit the email, I did. The student thanked me for my response, saying that it had not been clear how much“schmoozing”was called for. In my email I reminded this person to cc me on the message. This did not occur. When I asked why, the individual responded that it had been an issue of personal independence and responsibility. Then, just 1 day after the student sent the email to the staff director, this individual wrote that no response had been forthcoming, asking“What is our next step politically?”