A study exploring the experiences of higher-degree research (HDR) candidates and their supervisors has provided Australian universities with valuable new understanding of the types of behaviours in supervisory relationships that can both support and stymie candidatures.
Undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Institute and Gendered Violence Research Network (GVRN) at UNSW Sydney, in collaboration with 10 participating universities and the Australian Graduate Research Council, the study is based on survey data collected from 1,207 candidates and 641 supervisors, along with 60 interviews.
It found a large proportion of the candidates (71%) and supervisors (85%) who participated in the study found the supervision experience to be satisfying. Results highlighted the importance of interpersonal dynamics in engendering a positive experience but noted that when challenging behaviours led to undesirable levels of responsiveness and support, the supervision experience was unsatisfying, and possibly detrimental to candidates’ mental health and wellbeing.
“While there has been some long-standing awareness in Australia around challenging behaviours in university environments, research to date has largely focused on undergraduate or coursework students, overlooking the experiences of HDRs in the context of their relationships with supervisors,” said GVRN Co-Convener Professor Jan Breckenridge.
“As a result, there was limited research on the impact and incidence of these issues, and a lack of understanding of their severity and extent.”
The most common challenging behaviours reported by candidates were that their supervisor was ‘not providing timely and constructive feedback on their work or progress’, was ‘not clearly communicating expectations’ or was ‘ignoring the candidate’s attempts to communicate with them’. Candidates reported that the supervisor behaviours which had the most impact negatively affected their mental or emotional wellbeing; their relationship with their supervisors; their productivity; and their research progress.
For supervisors, the most common behaviours reported included candidates ‘not clearly communicating with their supervisors about the progress of their research’, ‘rebuffing or ignoring their supervisors’ academic feedback’, and ‘having unrealistic expectations around their supervisors’ capacity to provide feedback’.
The study’s findings have also drawn attention to the need for better support of affected individuals, as well as the effectiveness of university reporting processes in responding to and managing challenges and difficulties experienced.
Of the candidates who made a formal report or complaint about challenging behaviours, less than half of them (43%) had a representative from their university who explained the formal reporting or complaint processes to them, and only a quarter of them (27%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the process. Concerningly, about one in six (17%) of candidates were informed of the outcome of their report or complaint, and less than half of them (41%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the outcome.
“The findings affirmed the need for universities to make their policies and procedures clearer and more accessible,” said director of the Australian Human Rights Institute, Professor Justine Nolan.
“It also offers universities clarity into how processes can be enhanced to ensure a positive and constructive supervision experience for both candidates and supervisors.”
Read the full report here.