BEST OF DOC-TALK: Advisors

One troubled foreign Doc-talker wrote:

What I'd like to see are some suggestions for conflict management in the situation where essentially the supervisor's guts and existence are heartily hated by other instructors, and, the supervisor has a psychological kink and seems to hate his students after an initial honeymoon period, refuses to contact them/does not honor agreements made with them etc. (Not just PhD students but all his graduate/undergraduate people).Change of supervisors is not possible as he is the only one in the country in that discipline. Now I've survived 4 years of this to date but you get so damn weary wondering when he contacts you what the hidden agenda is, or if he does not contact you, what he's up to behind your back and what little "surprise" will await you. Fortunately he is away at the moment (marvelous--peace at last) but the situation cannot surely be that unique and I'd like to see some suggestions for when he returns (Have had my own thoughts but you cannot get Ingram M10's over here :-))

BOOK REVIEW A book, "Beyond Machiavelli: Tools for Coping with Conflict" by Fisher, Kopelman, and Schneider can give you strategies to manage conflict in specific crises and on-going disputes. The authors start by asking, "What exactly is wrong?" Most of us then ask ourselves, "What shall we do about it?" This, the authors suggest, is a mistake. We should be asking, "Who is someone who can make a difference in this situation?" Once we've answered this, we gear all our persuasive argumentation toward that person, taking the person's perspective into account. We then generate fresh ideas and formulate advice for this decision maker by proposing a plan that is realistic and operational.

We replace the typical question of "What shall I do?" with the questions: 1. What would I like someone else to do? 2. Why haven't they done it already? 3. What could I do to make it easier for them to do it? This structured, analytical approach is ideal for graduate student advocates and others who want to help students deal with long-term adversarial situations such as might exist with advisors.

Fisher et al. write, "Coping ad hoc with one conflict after another is an endless task--necessary, but endless. In order to move beyond a continuous search for one-shot solutions, we will want to improve the mechanisms for dealing with conflict. If we are tired of bailing water, maybe it is time to fix the pump. We will want to work on the system in which individual conflicts are embedded. It is in our long-term interest both to play each hand well and also to improve the game."

--Roger Fisher, Elizabeth Kopelman, Andrea Kupfer Schneider. "Beyond Machiavelli: Tools for Coping with Conflict." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

From: An MIT Doc-talker

I have had some similar problems with people on my committee. For example, one of my committee members never responded after receiving two different chapter drafts of my dissertation in the mail (to complicate matters, I'm finishing my PhD long-distance). I kept sending e-mails, calling & leaving messages (she never seemed to be in, even during supposed office hours), sending reminders asking for her feedback, etc. Finally I got the Director of Graduate Studies in the Department to leave a message for her to please get in touch with me regarding the two chapters. Only then did she call me and leave a message that she'd lost the material!!! I had to send it all over again, but meantime several months had elapsed.

My suggestions: 1. Know that you're not alone. Sad to say, MANY graduate advisors, especially at the thesis stage, are flaky, unreliable, and at times downright difficult and contradictory. DO NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY.

2. Find support and if necessary advice on the thesis elsewhere--other profs, other institutions, other grad students. I joined a support group of other grad students in my field who are all working on dissertations now. We read chapter drafts, discuss writing and committee problems, talk about job-hunting, etc. It's very helpful and encouraging, and lets us feel less alone in this process.

3. If possible, find someone supportive in a position of authority in the department and let them know what's going on. For example, I had the DGS leave a message for that committee member, and suddenly she got back to me. If you think the chair or someone else would be supportive and could do anything to help, speak to them.

4. Don't stoop to a personal, angry level with your committee if possible, but don't stop communicating, either. Keep them posted on what you're doing and very clearly spell out what you need from them in a polite way. I've taken to sending letters with the chapter drafts that say something like: "I expect to begin revising this by (give a specific date), so please get your comments back to me by then if at all possible. If I haven't heard from you by then, I'll assume you have no major revisions to suggest."

5. Keep documentation on everything--i.e., keep copies of letters, document meetings and phone calls with your committee, keep records of problems and SNAFUs you have with them. You may wish to pursue the issue at some point with the chair, dean, or someone else in a position to do something about it. I'm considering making a formal complaint about some of the treatment I've received--once I've got my degree in hand! Good luck!

From: A Canadian Doc-talker

Find someone who "is high" on you and devise a way to get rid of your advisor. It will be the shortest method in the long run. No one should put up with that stuff. You have my sympathy.

From: An anonymous Doc-talker

I just read the submission from the student with adviser problems. I can sympathize with this person; I have a poor adviser, too. I don't think my situation is nearly as difficult, but I have a question that I believe merits some discussion: What are the consequences of switching adviser and project? I am a student still in the first year of a Masters' program in engineering. My adviser disappoints me at every turn. I find it very difficult to have any respect for this person as a scientist, a mentor, or a manager. When I show him some data and my analysis, he parrots back my interpretations as his own, and often incorrectly. One week he does not even care what I am doing, and the next week he is beating me to begin working on a task that I completed, and showed him the results of, the week before. He is up for tenure soon, and everything he does seems geared toward that goal, although these are often shrouded as benevolent acts. I don't know of any one who believes he will be tenured; I sure don't. I know that I am very capable of doing good work, but it is difficult to motivate myself when he either takes credit for or forgets what I do. I would like to go on to pursue a PhD, possibly at another institution. Will my opportunities be mitigated if I stick it out, or if I jump ship? I can't seem to find a winning situation. Has anyone else dropped a poor adviser?

In response to the above, Ronda Dave writes:

Dear Doc-Talker, Many students change advisors mid-stream, but usually because the advisors become unavailable (get sick, die, transfer, or retire). If one of the other committee members assumes the advisory role, there are few negative consequences to the study. If another professor not on the original committee assumes the role of advisor, the student is almost always required to do extra work. One student was told that if she changed advisors, she would have to go through the proposal approval process again-in other words-start from scratch. A few students I know have "divorced" their advisors. One who was also taking courses from the professor felt the professor lowered her course grade after she requested the change. In contrast, one student changed advisors and the old advisor who eventually left the university continued to work with him, almost like a mentor, until he finished.

So it's a tough call to know how your advisor will respond if you decide to change. Given your description, however, I'd predict his response wouldn't be supportive. The only way I'd change advisors in your situation is if I could get someone more senior and more powerful in the department to assume the advisory role. To do this, you'll need a good "excuse" to make the change. Is there a way you could slant your thesis research away from your current advisor's research interests and more toward the interests of someone else in the department? This would give you a legitimate reason to make the change.

Remember that professors are joined at the hip even though they may have apparent differences of personality, philosophy, proclivity, etc. According to the professors I know, it's a cardinal sin to criticize another professor or in any way imply he/she isn't doing a good job. You'll pass in and out of the department within 2-3 years; but the professors will remain (especially if they have tenure). You can see it's to their advantage to stick together against an individual student, and they generally will. You'll need to have a rationale for changing advisors that the new advisor can believe and can use to smooth any ruffled feathers on your old advisor. Good Luck to you, and thanks to other list members for their suggestions.

PS: Some of you may wonder why I persist in using the "archaic" spelling of advisor with an "o" instead of the modern usage with an "e." It is not an oversight or ignorance on my part. It is my reminder that advisors need to retain or regain their original sense of agency (an agent of advice) which in far too many cases appears to have been lost. -or = "suffix: one that does a (specified) thing. [The act is emphasized.] er = "1a: a person occupationally connected with (e.g., lawyer); 2a: one that does or performs (a specified action). [The action is emphasized.] Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th ed. --rd

From: Another anonymous Doc-talker

I've survived a situation similar to the one described above. I worked with my first advisor for about 4 years before we "divorced." It was a very bitter "divorce." By then, I had already completed my course work toward my doctorate. I had even completed the qualifying exam (comps). Because most of the professors in the dept were invested in other students, I basically spent the next 2-3 years trying to find someone to take me in. My dissertation committee has been like a revolving door with the last member quitting a week before the proposal defense.

Given my experiences, I believe it is important to know that you have an advisor to work with before you make a change. Also, if you do decide to separate, be willing to give up any joint projects that are in progress or have not been published. I and my former advisor battled over projects for almost two years. It is important to do none of this "in private." Find a chair or dean to confide in, and document everything. You may even want to contact a representative of some professional organization regarding authorship and research ethics. If I can be of further help or support, please let me know. I'm limited in what I can say publically (list-wide) because my dissertation is not yet complete (but is finally in progress). But I am willing to "talk" one-to-one.

From: A a University of Virginia Doc-talker

Advice for those early in the game: do not let any one person become too important to your process. It is well worth the extra photocopying dollars and meeting-time to have an extra prof or two or three on your team. My dissertation is interdisciplinary, so I benefit from advice outside my own department, but even if it weren't, I would find ways to get a wider readership than one or two advisors. Look for professors who take a different theoretical or methodological approach from your own--ask them to read your work by explaining that you know the approach is different but you value their approach and respect those who practice it (if you do), and would like to see if your fledgling efforts will fly in the wider field. This earns you serious consideration as an intellectual seeker (if in fact you are--don't do this if you aren't really interested in intellectual challenges to your work). Plus, most valuable of all, you'll receive comments on your work that can truly broaden its scope, appeal, and value--thus making you a better scholar and your disseration more like a book.

I am lucky to have fabulous advisors--3 main ones and a team of 3 ancillary specialists who read from time to time sections of chapters I think they would be most interested in. Caveat: unless you are a pretty strong thinker you can feel "pulled apart" by all the disparate opinions and suggestions; on the whole I have found this beneficial in strengthening my work and my identity as a writer, but it is a risk I thought I should mention. I sympathize with those who have lousy advisors, but I would say to new folks that it is intellectually important and psychologically healthy not to let any one or two people have too much influence over what you do. Best wishes--

From: An anonymous Doc-talker

The Whole Story: I have just been re-reading the e-mails on advisor relations thinking about my own situation. I am a second year graduate student at the University of Minnesota. In my department we are required to select an advisor at the end of our first year. We are told that it is okay to switch advisors later in our program. I had taken courses from only five professors and had little exposure to the other faculty members. When I joined the program, the Director of Graduate Studies strongly urged to select a certain professor as my advisor. His reasoning was that the professor was in a similar field of interest, had tenure, was the director of a well-known institute, and had a good record of research funding.

Well, that sounds really nice, so I decided that I would ask the guy. He accepted, but now I am not sure that it was a good decision. I talked to some more advanced graduate students and was told that the professor had few advisees, and that those advisees tended to take a long time getting through the program. This worries me. Our department also has a requirement to do a research practicum, preferably within your first two years. It is also a requirement that needs to be met before you are eligible to teach. I asked my advisor his opinion on what I should take - an independent study or a two-quarter sequence that did not meet my interests. He suggested a third option, a two-quarter sequence that he was co-teaching. It was in my area of interest and he reassured me that it would meet my practicum requirement.

Before I registered, I suddenly felt unsure of the course. So I started asking him questions. Gee, what do you know...it didn't meet the requirement. Fortunately I had something else on the back burner with another professor, otherwise I would have had to scramble. What really bothers me is that I would have been made ineligible to teach the next year by following his advice. I am not sure whether or not he deliberately misled me or was just ignorant of the procedures. I feel like he should know proper procedure if he is going to be an advisor, and especially since he is going to be the next chair of the department.

Not only do I feel wary of his advice now, but I feel like I cannot approach him. When I mentioned that I wanted to file my program soon, and would like his advice, he told me that next quarter he would be teaching so he would have more office hours. I am not one of his undergraduate students and I would really like to be able to make an appointment with him for ten to fifteen minutes of uninterrupted time.

I have another professor who has shown interest in me, been extremely helpful, has given sound advice, is pleasant, doesn't ignore me in the halls, and is willing to make time during his day for me. Other students say that he is an excellent advisor; he communicates well, and works his students hard. He has been chair of the department, and has the highest standing (and pay) in the department. I have had him for several classes and am currently working on a project with him. BUT...he does not do research that I am very interested in. I cannot think of an excuse to switch to him. I am thinking that I could keep my current advisor just for show, and build a network of other professors both within the department and without. Or I could switch, but I am unsure of the consequences. What do you think?

...and Ronda Dave' answers: As we mentioned at the outset of this string on advisor problems, we don't know what the consequences are of switching advisors. Obviously these consequences will depend on the particular circumstances under which the switch is made. If a reasonable justification can be constructed and presented in a "win-win" argument, so that no hard feelings are generated, then students should have the right to change advisors at any time. In fact, many graduate school policies specifically mention this right, as for example the University of California, Berkeley (given in The Graduate, Spring 1991, p. 4)--"Graduate students have a right to: #6. Change topics, major advisors, and memberships of their committees."

The key is, of course, to do this in a way that saves everyone's face. It seems to me that an advisor's availability is probably the most important consideration in the advisor's ability to advise. If you feel your advisor is relatively unavailable because of a heavy research schedule, a heavy teaching load, or whatever, that is just cause for you to consider changing the advisor's role. One option is to change his/her role to a minor one on the committee and ask one of the committee members to assume a more prominent role.

Keeping the advisor on the committee as a member is a courtesy but it can backfire, as it did for Rob Peters, the author of "Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student's Guide to Earning a Master's or a PhD" (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1992). Rob mentions that he dedicated the book "To my first adviser. Without his unique ideas on academic guidance I would not have realized the pressing need for this book." He then goes on to report on p. 174, "I changed advisers toward the end of my second year after a nightmarish experience with my first one. I foolishly thought I could placate him by keeping him on as a committee member, but he remained so hostile and obstructionist that I finally had to remove him from the committee. My advice to you is that if you do fire an adviser, don't leave him on your committee where he can sabotage you. Also if you do remove a committee member, hide your ill feelings and help him save face. Don't tell him (or anyone else in your department) your negative reasons for the personnel change."

In your case, because there's no actual "history of ill will," keeping your advisor on as a member of the committee might be a good move, especially if he's able to give you good advice about your topic. But putting your other, more helpful, professor on the committee to guide you sounds like a smart move too. As we wrote in Dissertation News #6, in an article, "Assembling the Ideal Advisor"-- ". . . You need to find an advisor who will at a minimum-- (a) monitor your progress, (b) give you good advice about your research, (c) and provide you with *active* and *constructive* support. "What happens if the professor who is most expert on your topic proves least interested in monitoring your progress? Or the professor who is most nurturing and supportive is least able to give you good research advice? You may need to adopt the "pastiche" model, where your ideal advisor is actually a team, strategically put together by you. 'It is you who must finally decide how and from what sources to get the various kinds of support you need. You then owe it to yourself to actively seek out those who have information or whose input you need....' (Office of Graduate Studies, Stanford University, 1990). "You should select your committee members to complement one another's skills, but you may need to look outside the university.

Cone and Foster, authors of "Dissertations and Theses from Start to Finish" (APA, 1993) suggest you look for experts first in your department; then in your academic community; next in other nearby institutions; and finally in community or commercial sites. "Consulting with these individuals on substantive areas can fulfill some of the functions normally served by a knowledgeable chairperson."

In this article, we then go on to give students a list of criteria against which to judge advisors during the selection process, but we caution that "You should assign priorities to selection criteria in terms of your own needs first, and then assess prospective advisors based on your personal "critical criteria" list."

It sounds like you need an advisor who is more supportive. Having learned this about yourself, you may want to approach the other professor who's shown an interest in you and ask him to be your advisor. If he agrees, you need to go to your current advisor and put forth a proposition, something along the lines of... "I'm very grateful to you for accepting the role of my dissertation advisor, but I've learned over the past several months that I need an advisor who can hold my hand tighter through this initial process of getting my project started. I know you're busy now and you've said you'll have more time next term, which I appreciate. But I'd like to get a jump on the project this term. I wonder if you'd be willing to serve as a committee member but let me make "so and so" my advisor? I think he has more time and he's indicated he'd be willing to work closely with me right now. I'd only do this if you thought you could work well with him, but I know you two have worked on [name-a-student]'s committee in the past. And he says he'd be pleased to work with you again. Would this switch be okay for you? I still value your advice on my project given that you're probably the professor who's working on something most similar. But I really need regular, ongoing meetings with an advisor right now who can get me started so I don't feel so frustrated...."

You can tell from his response whether he's amenable or upset despite what he says. If it looks like he's going to be nasty about it, just say you're sorry it doesn't work for you to work with him and thank him for what he's done so far and leave. You'll have to live with the repercussions. He might actually say he understands your predicament and will make time in his schedule for you to get advice from him on a regular basis. If so, set up a series of regular appointments right then and there. The third possibility is that he'll thank you for relieving him of the advisory duties and admit he's overextended and agree to help you in any way he can later on, in which case, stumble out and go celebrate.

Selecting a good advisor is probably the second most important decision you'll make regarding your dissertation (the first being, in my opinion, your topic). Good luck and let us know what happens!

From: A Stanford Doc-talker

(Here's an inquiry from a new Stanford student who needs help with our whole graduate system. Can you give her some guidance?)

Hello, I am new to doc-talk and actually to the whole U.S. educational system, too. This quarter I should pick a secondary advisor and am having difficulty making up my mind. My problem is that, coming from a system without any advisors except the professor who has to accept (and read) your Master's thesis or dissertation, I am not used to contacting any professor with my personal study problems. I try to solve them on my own.

What do you usually use the advisor for? The only domain in which I am used to contacting professors is as academic experts, that is, as people who can give me some advice when I am writing on something, or suggest reading material, etc. For that, I would usually contact the instructor of the specific course, who naturally would know the topic we covered--or if I am working on something else, the professor of a course I took which was close to my area of interest. So, what can I expect an advisor to do? What can I ask of him, apart from that? And how easy is it to switch an advisor in general--the discussion I read in doc-talk worries me a bit, because it seems to be more complicated and more political than I have imagined so far.

From: A Stanford Doc-talker.

At Stanford, we are excepted to pick two 'secondary advisors' for our dissertations. They are usually faculty experts who are knowledgeable in the field who can provide useful insight into your topic or a different point of view. The student gives a presentation of progress at least once a year to this group and gets feedback and suggestions about the direction and focus of your work. In general, don't get too worried about negative talk. Many people have wonderful advisor relationships (though we try not to rub it in). When choosing advisors, keep in mind that your advisor is your champion. He or she is the one who has to stand up and support you in a pinch. Good luck.

From: A Michigan State University Doc-talker

In response to the above foreign student'squestion, advisors can: -- help you decide what classes to include in your program based on your interests and abilities -- help you maneuver the bureaucratic structure of a university -- provide knowledge about their particular areas of expertise and interest -- share their views of the "real world" in your career interest -- assist in professional networking -- provide information about job vacancies which they may have learned of through personal connections -- provide enthusiasm -- provide a sounding board for ideas -- provide support regarding non-academic areas of your life which influence academics -- look at the same problem in different ways because of their different career paths and interests.

No one advisor can do all of this. Advisor personalities vary widely. Try to have advisors or committee members who are able to work together but have different interests and personalities.

From: An MIT Doc-Talker

On 15 Jan, you posted a note from a grad student who wasn't sure what to do about an advisor who was going to be the next chair of the dept., but had almost made the student take courses which would not have allowed the student to teach the following year. While I am only in my first year as a grad student at MIT, I am 30 and spent the last year talking to quite a few professors I knew about how to succeed as a grad student. EVERY ONE of them talked about selecting an advisor who *makes time for you.*

One of them even told me to not spend too much time worrying about the exact research I did for my dissertation. While I needed to be reasonably close to my intended field (since it would affect any hiring decisions made), he emphasized that the work I would do getting my PhD should be enough to get the degree and worry about "learning" later on in my career (when I actually had a paying job).

Reading Rob Peters' book (Getting Waht You Came For: The Smart Student's Guide to Earning a Master's or a Ph.D., published by The Noonday Press, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York) was also one of the best things I've done. I actually try to reread the highlights before each semester.

Unfortunately, as Ronda pointed out, you need to remove yourself from this situation without creating any enemies. While it will be painful, GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to convince the professor IT'S YOUR FAULT that you need weekly sessions for guidance. Having access to your advisor is a reasonable expectation, if he's being difficult already--you're probably going to get in bigger trouble later. Also, do not tell ANYONE in the department ANY negative things about the old advisor. Gossip runs rampant and no one should be trusted. (Advice from another professor.) Good luck.

From: A University of Michigan Doc-talker

Maybe we have beaten this advisor thing to death, but here's my two cents worth. I have an advisor I like very much, and I am very satisfied with her. Yet I also go to the chair of my department sometimes. He has different ideas, different perspectives, etc. It is valuable to me (and, I think, important to my student career here) to solicit advice from such varied sources. However, inevitably conflicting advice will arise. What I have found--much as I hate to admit this--is that profs see so many people and have so much on their minds that SOMETIMES THEY SIMPLY DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS THEY TOLD YOU. Some of the times I have agonized and fretted and worried about who would be offended turned out to be an incredible waste of psychic energy. Hear me right, I am not saying that they do not care about us, and I am not suggesting rampant senility in higher education institutions.... I am just trying to ease a few minds. Often what sounds to a student like advice that MUST BE FOLLOWED may actually be, in the professor's mind, an offhand suggestion that happened to be the advice of the hour.

...and Ronda Dave' writes:

Dear Doc-talker, You've touched on several advisor issues that deserve comment, all dealing with the communication gap that so often seems to exist between advisors and advisees. Graduate students often don't know how to interpret advisors' and committee members' comments--they don't know which ones are important, or which ones are "mandatory." And often, even if they think the advice is important and mandatory, they don't know precisely how to comply. This "communication gap" is such a ubiquitous problem for thesis-writing graduate students that it deserves serious discussion.

One reason the problem exists is because professors differ in how they provide feedback. Some tell students what to do in very unequivocal, didactic terms. "Do not use a correlational approach. Use a comparative analysis for this design." or "Omit this discussion from your literature review. It is dated." These kinds of instructions are easy to follow. The problem arises when comments aren't specific and direct. "You might want to explore an alternative analysis for this design." or "How does this discussion relate to the current literature? Is it sufficiently relevant?"

However it may seem, elliptical communication is not another hurdle advisors purposely put in the dissertation path to increase its difficulty. In fact, sometimes it's the nicest advisors who give the fuzziest advice. Some advisors, of course, simply don't take the time to "direct" students. Some prefer a "laissez faire" approach to advising. They make comments like, "Unclear." or "Why?" in the margins of your drafts. They leave it to you to figure out the specifics and respond. Other advisors are reluctant to "spoon feed" guidance to students. They think it belittles graduate students to be ordered to "carry out the advisor's instructions." Still other advisors believe they can extract higher thinking, better production, or greater effort from students by being nebulous in their advice and forcing the student to "think." And other advisors, often the nicest ones, in an attempt to save your ego while they criticize your work, use oblique expressions to draw your attention to a problem without actually telling you what it is. In their efforts to help you save face, they leave it to you to "discover" the problem on your own.

For all these reasons and others, most professors give advice that is open to interpretation. You'll need to answer the questions, "How directive is my advisor? Is the advice specific enough for me to know what to do next? And if you honestly need greater direction, ask for it.

There is a further problem that all advisors acknowledge--they sometimes change their minds. Sometimes they forget what they say from one time to the next, but more often they change their minds because they gain more information that *changes their perspective* about how your study should go. Certainly in my efforts as an advisor I often saw things differently from one meeting with a student to the next. As you rewrite and rethink and refine your study, your communication of it to your advisor will reflect this development. Your own greater insight of where you're heading lets your advisor give more specific and helpful advice.

On the other hand, if you consistently feel more confused about your study when you leave your advisor's office than when you enter, you may want to get a second opinion from someone else (especially someone not on the committee and not politically involved with the department).

Another reason advisors give fuzzy advice is because they really don't know what you should do. The "next" thing for you to do or the "right" step for you to take may not be clear to either you or your advisor when you meet. So he or she may suggest you do something, more as a brainstorming technique than as a directive. If this happens, it may seem like "changing one's mind" or "advice of the hour," but it's really just a shotgun approach in the hope that you'll gain the necessary information by your "random mental thrashing about" to make a more informed decision.

Another issue you mention is conflict among different sources of advice. This is a delicate issue because it inevitably involves your advisor's ego, and of course your advisor's advice has priority over other points of view. David Sternberg has an excellent discussion in his book, How to Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation," which has to do with the "social calculus" of dealing with conflicting committee advice. He suggests you first analyze how serious the parties are about their respective positions. And if they both seem adamant, to get them together with other people and present the conflict to the group so they can see how you are caught in the middle. Many students are too "shy" to object to advice with which they disagree. So they begrudgingly attempt to please everyone who gives them advice by incorporating it at all costs, often jeopardizing the integrity of the study. Other students feel powerless to object, elevating the advisor's advice to the status of a "commandment."

Both of these attitudes can lead to problems with your motivation down the line. If you incorporate other views and suggestions which really go against your grain, you can find yourself less interested to work on the dissertation as it becomes "less and less yours." So it's important to continue to shape it "closer to your heart's desire" as you progress.

Many advisor communication problems can be circumvented by using a "thesis journal" in which you maintain careful notes of what transpires during meetings with advisors and committee members. No one, not even you, will remember everything that transpires over the years a thesis takes. Unfortunately, the "difficult decisions" your advisor makes are the very ones he or she is likely to forget (like dismissing a particular "pet" theoretical approach that another committee member suggested).

So we encourage all students working on theses to maintain a "thesis journal" in which they document who said what, and when. We are not suggesting, however, that students openly SHARE their journal with their committee members unless it is advantageous to do so. The best idea is to fill out the journal AFTER the meeting, rather than during it. And you may or may not want to take the journal with you to meetings.

Now to come, dear Doc-talker, to your specific situation, where you agonized over your advisor's directive only to discover she didn't remember what was said, let alone care whether you followed the advice, which apparently conflicted with other advice you wanted to take. You've discovered that your advisor's not particularly "invested" in the advice she gives you. And you've found that her advice sometimes conflicts with the advice from your department chair, which often agrees more with what you want to do. Based on these insights, you can probably assume that your advisor won't object to your not following her advice, as long as you have a justification for doing things a different way. One thing you don't want to do is use someone else's opinion as the justification for why you're not taking her advice. So never say, "Well, Dr. So and So told me it would be better to do such and such," because that puts her ego at risk. It would be better to bring up Dr. so and so's argument as your own, and practice it sufficiently in your own mind to make it as convincing as possible. Thanks for your comments, Doc-talker. and good luck! How have other list members handled the advisor-student communication gap?

From: An anonymous Doc-talker

2 was able to handle some of my own anxieties about conflicting advice after finding that I could be completely open with one committee member concerning this very issue. What gave me some measure of peace was the reassurance that while committee members may have different opinions about my approach, what I needed to be concerned with was having good, sound reasons for the decisions I had made--rather than trying to make what seemed to be the RIGHT decisions in everybody else's eyes--and so be prepared to defend my own decisions. Others on the committee might disagree and I could probably expect this to some degree, but so long as I showed evidence of being aware of other positions as I took my own stand, the work would be defensible.

So, if you can answer the question, "Why did I go this route?" in a manner which shows knowledge of the options and sound reasoning, you will have a respectable defense. (Or so I was told, and I've since graduated.)

My contact with a professor who could be open and honest about all aspects of the dissertation work was invaluable. I strongly support the suggestion that you find such a person--someone who knows the system, appreciates the difficulties associated with getting the degree, and is also acquainted with the personalities on your committee. One may feel stupid asking for clarification or exposing personal difficulties, but it is far better to ask the questions early on than find out later that the "suggestion" was something they wanted you to do before you graduated. (In my experience, I had fulfilled every objective presented in my research proposal, only to discover that an earlier "suggestion" was something that they would insist upon. Six more months.) And if you don't know the nature of the advice when it is given, it may help to ask _right then_, "I'm trying to weigh your advice appropriately. Is what you're describing something which you consider absolutely essential to this work? Help me understand how it will influence the results, or why it wouldn't be better to do such and such." Or, "I've gotten some conflicting advice on this. How would you suggest I handle it?" All the best.

From: A Canadian Doc-talker

Lately, I've been comparing notes with other graduate students in my faculty (i.e., medicine) regarding the roles and responsibilities of thesis supervisors toward their graduate students. It surprises me how much variability there is in the extent of supervisor involvement in graduate student projects. At one extreme, a few graduate students claim that they see their supervisors on a daily or nearly-daily basis, and that their supervisors are actively involved in conducting experiments, literature review and writing papers. On the other extreme, I talked to students who had supervisors that they rarely saw (once a month), who did not know or understand the nature of the experiments being conducted in his/her lab. One student even claimed that she was responsible for "ghost writing" grant applications for her supervisor. This hands-off mentoring approach really scares me. Especially in science faculties, since I believe that unsupervised graduate students are more likely to make mistakes which could lead to a tremendous waste of time, money and possibly even the publication of erroneous data. My question is this: Do most universities have policies or guidelines regarding what constitutes adequate supervision? If they do exist, what can be done about a supervisors who are consistently neglectful of their responsibilities?

DISSERTATION ADVISOR USER'S MANUAL

The key to finishing your dissertation is a good working relationship with your advisor. Problems with your research can be frustrating, but problems with your advisor can be fatal to your degree. On the other hand, a good relationship as co-researcher can be of long term mutual benefit to you both. But don't expect your advisor to structure the interaction, energize the relationship, or resolve advising problems. Relating well is entirely up to you.

Most advisors are interested in coworking with bright people on ground-breaking research--that's why they became graduate professors. But they aren't particularly interested in working with students, or on student research projects. Moreover, few professors really enjoy dissertation advising. That's not what they were trained to do, not what they were hired to do, and usually not what they want to do. In academia, advising gets little credit toward salary increases, promotions, or prestige, so few professors feel it's important. The result is, they lack motivation to advise well, and are diffident about their advising relationships. It's your advisor's lack of involvement with the advising role that places sole responsibility with you to set up and sustain a good advising relationship.

Setting Expectations

To generate a good relationship, you need to hold reasonable expectations for your advisor's role functions, as well as his or her attitudes and behaviors. Without understanding your advisor's role, you won't know what to ask for. Without perspective on appropriate attitudes and behaviors, you won't know how to evaluate your advisor's performance. Moreover, without balanced expectations, you're liable to be easily disappointed without cause, and you won't sense if your advisory relationship starts to sputter. As important as it is, achieving realistic expectations is difficult, mainly because there's a woeful lack of recognized advising standards against which to gauge your interaction.

Lack of Advising Standards

Most institutions don't define reasonable expectations of advisors. Other than a general code of ethics and a quota on how many students advisors can supervise, most don't set standards for advising, and don't monitor the process. The few available guidelines are generalized role descriptions (e.g., meet with students as needed, read and return drafts in reasonable time, monitor students' progress, etc.). This allows advisors considerable latitude in carrying out their advising duties, which they exercise fully.

Recognizing the vacuum in standards, ASGS developed a group of "reasonable expectations," derived from numerous authorities and years of working with students and advisors. Armed with these--preferably at the outset of your advisory relationship--you can discuss with your advisor what your expectations are. If there's a difference of opinion, you can negotiate (or find another advisor). Later, your knowledge of reasonable expectations will help you detect hints of problems as they arise, and give you a better perspective on how to solve them.

The Imbalance of Power

To keep your advising relationship humming over the several years a dissertation takes, you must perceive and resolve problems as they arise. Solving these problems is touchy. The power imbalance between you and your advisor limits your course of action. Practically speaking, you need to start with a positive, businesslike attitude toward your advisor, and make changes and improvements using suggestion and negotiation.

But you also need to keep your advisor's role in perspective. Advisors traditionally convey the notion that they're all-powerful, that they're doing students a favor by advising them, and that students have no option but to kowtow to their wishes. Advisors promote these ideas to retain their near totalitarian control over the advising process, and students believe them. The facts are, advisors do have final approval over the dissertation, but they're not all-powerful; they can be _influenced_, and they can be replaced. Professors are not doing graduate students a favor by advising them. Even if advisors aren't rewarded for it directly, they're paid to advise students along with their other professorial duties. Students pay their institutions, and through them, their advisors, for advice they receive.

Moreover, unquestioning acceptance of the "suggestions" of an advisor can scuttle your dissertation. You may have a better grasp of your topic than your advisor does, and you'll probably remember your study better from one meeting to the next. If you blindly follow your advisor's directions, you might get hopelessly confused, or worse, you may begin to feel the dissertation isn't yours, and lose motivation to finish.

It's Up to You

Students naturally focus on the advising relationship more than their advisors do, and the more successful students take control of it. Knowing the operating procedures for relating well with your advisor helps you get the advice and support you need. In the area of advising, professors don't come with batteries included. We suggest you start winding that key.--rd

To order any ASGS product or written document,
click here for the ASGS Order Form