phd advisor fired me

• The Cancer Researcher Podcast
• Sign up to our newsletter
• EACR website

My Ph.D. adviser fired me. Here’s how I moved on

By Anurag Srivastava

My Ph.D. adviser called me into his office, saying I needn’t bring my notebook. Puzzled, I followed him and sat down. We’d met for 2 hours the day before to finalize our project plan for the coming months, and it wasn’t clear what more we had to discuss. He started by saying, “Anurag, this conversation isn’t going to be easy,” instantly sending my mind into a flurry of thoughts about what was to follow. After 15 minutes of listing positive things about my academic capabilities, he looked me in the eye and said, “You are fired from the lab.” I stared back, blinking in disbelief. “Is he joking?” I wondered. “How is this possible?”

I had moved to Israel from my native India the year before, excited to experience a new culture and pursue a Ph.D. I’d already completed a master’s degree in the Netherlands, and at first things went well in my new lab: I got along with my Ph.D. adviser, and my experiments progressed as planned. Then, 3 months before I was fired, I ran into some problems. I made a few mistakes in the lab that slowed my research, but I wasn’t aware that my adviser noticed them, and he never spoke to me about any concerns.

That’s why I was caught off guard in his office that day. I’m still not sure why he fired me, but I suspect it was because of those mistakes. He wasn’t confident that I could complete my research in the time frame we’d planned.

The first few days after my dismissal were especially difficult. I spent hours staring at my computer screen, unable to get anything done. One day all I could do was sit on a beach, crying as I looked out across the Mediterranean Sea and wondered what I should do.

My adviser gave me 2 months to wrap up my work. I tried to change his mind with promising results, but he remained resolute. I could not break the news to my family in India, as the fear of disappointing them overwhelmed me. I soon spiraled into a state of depression and anxiety. Meanwhile, the date for me to leave the country was drawing near, as my visa required me to be enrolled as a student. I was lonely and without hope.

I started to wonder whether my experience was unique. Poking around on the internet, I was relieved to discover that many Ph.D. students never finish their studies for various reasons, one of which is a broken relationship with their adviser. At least I wasn’t alone.

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Around that time, I watched  Dasvidaniya , a Bollywood movie that’s about a man who is told that he has 3 months to live. He responds by reframing his perspective on life and setting out to make the most of his remaining months. Even though it is a common saying, one line from the movie stuck out to me: “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” What kind of “lemonade” could I make out of my current situation?

My desire to complete a Ph.D. was never in doubt; it was my confidence that had taken a hit after my dismissal. After much reflection, I told myself that one failed attempt was not the end of the world, and that I needed to give it another try. I reminded myself that even if I am not the most skilled researcher in the lab, I am a good teacher and I care passionately about mentoring students. My goal is to go back to India to work as a professor, a job I think I would excel at.

With renewed confidence, I emailed prospective advisers and applied to other programs. My previous adviser had not yet secured tenure; this time, I sent my applications to more senior, tenured professors. I thought they would have more experience working with international students and would be more patient as I developed my research abilities. Within 2 months of that fateful conversation in my adviser’s office, I landed an offer from a Ph.D. program in Italy. I accepted it and relocated to Europe, happy that my goal of completing a Ph.D. was alive once again.

I’ve faced other challenges during my current Ph.D. program, but my adviser has been supportive, and I’ve felt comfortable going to him for help and guidance. I’m thankful that I didn’t give up on my dream and that I found another professor willing to take me on. So, if you find yourself in a similar situation and life gives you lemons, ask yourself: “How can I make lemonade?”

About the author

I am a third year PhD student at the University of Turin, Italy. My research focuses on understanding the mechanism of the obesity paradox using bioinformatics. In my free time, I enjoy reading and coaching students in higher education. I am passionate about cooking, science communication and encouraging more empathy and compassion in science/academia/ the field of science.

Contact: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook 

This article was originally published in Science Magazine in January 2020 and has been republished with permission

Related articles more from author.

“I found my perfect environment”: EACR member answers your questions about working in industry

We spent 400+ hours creating the Cancer Researcher Podcast. Here’s what we learned.

Magdalena Sznurkowska & Irene Casanova Salas awarded 2024 EACR-AstraZeneca Postdoctoral Fellowships

Who are we.

The Cancer Researcher is an online magazine for the cancer research community from the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR).

Sign up for the EACR's email newsletter for cancer researchers, usually sent every 2 weeks.

More articles

Coffee, data and ‘opportunities disguised as obstacles’: Day in the life...

Colin Ratcliffe one year into his EACR-AstraZeneca Postdoctoral Fellowship

‘Hot Stuff’: public engagement and radioactive bananas

The Journey to Publication: WINNER of The Cancer Researcher-EACR Science Communication...

Is there a glass ceiling for women in cancer research? Episode...

4 Signs Your PhD Advisor Is Mistreating You and What to Do About It

PhD students rely on their supervisors for support, help and mentorship. But what happens when your supervisor treats you unfairly? In this article, we will tell about the top 4 signs your PhD advisor is mistreating you.

Why Do PhD Supervisors Turn on Students?

A PhD supervisor can make or break your post-graduate experience. An academic staff has a huge impact on how students feel about their experience. So, it’s hard when your supervisor starts treating you unfairly. Some students end up being micromanaged, bullied, and even abandoned by their advisors.

A conflict in working styles is one of the most common reasons why supervisor relationships turn sour. Many PhD advisors expect their students to be perfectly in sync with their work style. They don’t take it kindly when students can’t keep up.

Other times, it happens because of poor communication. Simply clarifying your expectations early can help you set things straight with your supervisor. Sometimes, even relationships that begin well, go on to become intolerable later. It’s all part of the ups and downs of the post-graduate experience.

With that said, there are times when students have advisors who are mistreating them without a clear reason. Let’s see how you can identify a PhD supervisor who mistreats you.

They Manipulate You through Praise

Mistreatment takes many forms. But you least expect it from someone who excessively praises you. Funnily enough, that is how some PhD advisors mistreat students. This type of behavior is called love bombing.

First, they will shower potential candidates with praises, telling them they are unlike other students they’ve worked with. They will lure you with promises of publications and prestigious institutions. However, it all ends after you join their research group.

As soon as you face problems like failed experiments, the same person could behave very differently. Instead of helping you modify your approach and reevaluate methods, they may belittle you.

The best way to pick up on such habits is to ask senior students in the program about their experience. Likewise, you can also ask the advisors how they relate to other students and how students relate to them.

In other words, if you sense your advisor is overpraising you or making fantastic claims about your acumen and credentials, pay attention to how they talk about other graduate students. Therefore, if an advisor tells you (a new graduate student) not to listen to senior graduate students because you are better than them, it’s likely they will discuss you similarly down the road.

They Want to Control Your Actions

Going to conferences and networking with people is crucial for the graduate journey. While it isn’t necessary to attend every meeting, you should definitely visit the ones relevant to your field and research topic.

A good supervisor will help you learn new skills and accelerate your professional and academic goals. Even if they disagree, they will let you decide what’s best for you. However, abusive advisors will stop you from attending conferences unless you have their permission. They will belittle you for going against their will and their position of power against you.

They Try to Isolate You

Abusers thrive in an environment where victims are isolated and can’t share their experiences. Unfortunately, graduate school is pretty isolating. Students must leave their established support circle, become financially dependent on an institution, and do their best to keep the advisor’s favor.

In such circumstances, it’s easier for abusive supervisors to force students into isolation. They may refuse to include other faculty as a part of your committee, so they have complete control over you.

There have been cases where abusive advisors refuse anyone on the committee who isn’t a part of their cult of personality. In such instances, a student’s success depends heavily on keeping their advisor happy. And since the rest of the committee is filled with people close to the supervisor, voicing your concerns can result in a group backlash or gaslighting.

This is why students need to maintain a strong support network. People around you can help you figure out different ways to avoid these situations.

They Want to Become Gatekeepers for Everything

Abusive supervisors have no qualms about telling you to do things and then get mad if you don’t follow through, even if it’s not directly related to the project. They will force you to ask them for permission for the simplest of things.

Impolite advisors may make it mandatory for students to ask for permission before approaching or talking to anyone at a conference. Other times, they might stop you from publishing your article in a journal until they have approved it.

Regardless, it’s likely that they won’t permit you and eventually force you to act on your own, only to then lash out at you for not listening.

In summary, the main purpose of mistreating supervisors is to misuse their power over you and exert their control over you. If you think your PhD advisor is mistreating you or stopping you from publishing an article, don’t worry; we have you covered.

Send your article to us. Experts at Edit911 offer you premium scientific editing services to help you publish your work in a journal. To learn more about our services, feel free to visit our website .

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related posts.

How To Use Quotations In Dissertations

Writing Fabulous Fiction: Tips from Great Writers, Movements, and Philosophies

The Scholarly Voice in Academic Writing

+1 (888) 985-3395

Live chat available 7 days a week, 7am-7pm EST.

We’re hiring!

© Copyright 2023 Edit911, Inc.   |    Terms of use    |    Privacy Policy

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Of monsters and mentors: PhD disasters, and how to avoid them

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. here three students relate phd nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

For all the efforts in recent years to improve the doctoral experience for students, Times Higher Education still receives a steady supply of horror stories from PhD candidates. To the authors of such submissions, the system appears, at best, indifferent to them and, at worst, outright exploitative. Here, we present three such examples – all of whose writers, tellingly, feel the need to remain anonymous, given the power dynamics involved.

Perhaps such tales are inevitable. Perhaps, even with the best will in the world, there will always be supervisor-supervisee relationships that just don’t function; expectations that, however heartfelt, just aren’t realistic; supervisors who just can’t find the time to give the kind of detailed supervision that they would like to give, and that students feel they need.

But perhaps there is still more that could be done to ensure that this most intense and crucial of academic relationships doesn’t end up on the rocks. In that spirit, two academics with strong views on the matter – one from science and one from the humanities – set out how they think the supervisory task should best be approached. Their guidance may not amount to a stake through the heart of the PhD horror franchise: as B-movie history amply demonstrates, good advice is not always heeded. But the exposure of the problems to further sunlight may at least slow the drip-drip of blood on to the doctoral carpet.

I had never felt so helpless in my life. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up

When I was offered a fully funded doctorate in a UK environmental science laboratory, I was delighted and accepted instantly. I assumed that the experience of working in an international environment and the many transferable skills that I would learn would be a stepping stone to an exciting career beyond the academy. Little did I know that what I had signed up for would destroy not only my career plans but also my passion for the subject, my ambition and my self-confidence.

My supervisors turned out to have limited knowledge of the topic that they had so glamorously advertised, and the university lacked the facilities and machinery that I needed. Left with precious little guidance, I was obliged to work with methods that would do very little to enhance my career. An obvious solution was to set up an external collaboration, but my supervisors were reluctant to sanction it. They didn’t seem to want to share the glory with anyone else, but the environment that they created meant that there was never likely to be much glory to share anyway.

It didn’t help, either, that I am female. My male supervisors, in a male-dominated field, constantly made belittling remarks that they would never have made to a male student, remarks that led me to doubt my own capabilities. My doctorate became a living nightmare, and, after a year of ineffectively trying to solve the issues directly with my supervisors, I decided to take things further.

Because the head of my department had just resigned, I sought help from the university’s students’ union. But joint meetings with a union representative and my supervisors seemed to go nowhere, culminating in accusations that I was “making up” the issues. The union subsequently managed to arrange a meeting with the head of the graduate school, but, nearly six weeks after our meeting, he deemed my case too complex and I was ultimately told to solve my issues with my supervisors directly!

I had never felt so helpless in my life, and I was amazed at how unconcerned the university apparently was about student well-being. After months of more meetings with my supervisors and the union, I was contacted by the departmental postgraduate tutor, who expressed “concern” about my progress. This offered me a ray of hope. However, as usual, things got worse rather than better. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up. I was offered an additional female supervisor, but, while welcome, that would have done little to solve the other issues.

I was given an ultimatum. I had two weeks to decide if I wanted to continue with my PhD and “accept” things as they were. The alternative was to leave – without any form of diploma or certificate for my two years of work (which included the publication of a first-author paper).

My last throw of the dice was to contact my funding body. However, my entire funding had already been transferred to my university, so there was little that it could do to help me. Thus I had no other choice but to quit and to watch as the university swept my case under the carpet, documenting my withdrawal as the result of “personal and health issues”.

Although the experience has cost me a lot, it also taught me a considerable amount. I learned to be wary of offers that seem too good to be true. I learned not to take my rights for granted. I learned the value of having expectations, commitments and offers put down in writing. I learned to trust no one.

I also learned a lot about how higher education institutions function. I discovered that they will do whatever it takes to cover up their own mishaps to save their reputation, even if it comes at the cost of destroying a young person’s career.

Anecdotally, cases similar to mine are becoming increasingly common. In recent months, there have been multiple ongoing cases at my former university, including more withdrawals. However, the university just recruits more students to make up for the losses.

It is well known that PhD students are widely seen by academics as a cheap workforce. But to be treated with such little respect by the people who are supposed to foster your career and help you to succeed is just not right in any workplace.

The author prefers to remain anonymous.

If you want to supervise and mentor with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department

The power that you as a supervisor have over a student or postdoc is immense. Your actions, whether they are kindnesses, temper tantrums or intimacies, have the potential to shake up trainees to a much greater degree than their actions can affect you. And, most of the time, trainees have no way to solve conflicts with you if you won’t negotiate. Hence, it is your responsibility not to abuse your power.

But it takes integrity and clarity not to do so. Doctoral supervision is challenging. Your first difficulty is in acknowledging and getting beyond unrealistic expectations of your students that you might not even know you have. In science, new supervisors often imagine a lab filled with idealised workers: miniature versions of themselves, who churn out data and submit manuscripts. So when their charges don’t do exactly what they expect, they feel frustrated.

You might also observe that other supervisors allow their people to flounder, or even to fail. And even though you don’t want that, you have never had the lessons in personnel management that might ensure it doesn’t happen. Academic departments and institutions may or may not provide support to guide supervisors and students in building effective relationships.

If you want to supervise and mentor students with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department. Nor can you assume, as a scientist, that your research group will passively absorb your good intentions. You must consider what you haven’t been trained in graduate school to consider: your own ethics, morals and sense of justice. Accept what institutional help exists, but if the policies at your institution render trainees expendable, you must develop the courage to stand up to power.

And then you build a framework for your students in which your ethics, rules and expectations are clear. For example, if you want your people to know that you are concerned with their professional futures, don’t let them drift without guidance. Evaluate each person regularly, and give feedback and compassionate criticism – not just on results but also on communication skills, presentation skills, time management and other characteristics of a successful professional. Keep notes on your meetings and follow up on what you and the trainee have discussed. Check in frequently and provide multiple opportunities for discussion and interaction. Be present.

Authorship and project choice are other vital areas where your policies can reflect your intentions to have a collaborative rather than a competitive climate. How are projects chosen? Do you actively foster collaboration, putting new people to work with more established lab members in a way that both parties benefit from, and will you continue to guide and monitor those collaborations? Do you intend to compete with your own trainees when they leave, or will you allow them to take their projects with them? Who writes the papers? How is authorship decided? Will you protect your people in authorship disputes with collaborating groups, or will you sacrifice a trainee to keep last authorship for yourself?

Create a group manual, with protocols, policy and helpful information, being specific about whatever you consider to be important for students to know. Include information about where trainees can find help if they have a personal or project issue – including problems with you.

You also need to be prepared to deal with the inevitable conflicts between lab members. Learn not to fear it, as that fear can mould you into a little dictator and keep you from understanding what people need. Have a process to work through conflicts (look up “interest-based conflict resolution”), as fair process often carries more weight with people even than achieving the outcome they wanted. Explain that process to your students, too: conflict resolution is one of the most valuable skills you can pass on. Don’t run from emotions – research is an emotional business – but learn to control your own emotional responses so that they don’t interfere with your communications.

Talk about ethical behaviour, and model that behaviour. If you expect your people to meet deadlines, you should be on time for meetings and return manuscripts and phone calls predictably. If you hear someone making a racist or sexist remark, correct the person: doing nothing will send the message that such behaviour is OK by you.

It is also important not to let yourself, or anyone else, become isolated. Make a point of introducing your students to your former students and postdocs – as well as to experts in their fields – when they visit or when you encounter them at meetings. Model the value of mentors by having mentors yourself, for personal and professional advice. Have the confidence to encourage trainees to have other role models and mentors, especially if they move into a project area in which you aren’t expert: having mentors is the start of building a web of relationships that will support trainees all through their lives.

But students must also be activists. Some supervisors eat their young, and some institutions allow it. As a student, you have the greatest level of control before you accept a position, so look for a place where you are respected and can do the work that you believe in. Ask other students questions about the scholarship and mentorship of particular supervisors before you make the decision to sign on. Once there, find role models, and get to know your community. The more you are integrated with others, the more people there are to help should your relationship with your supervisor or your project go badly.

It is unfortunate and unfair that students are not always protected, and that leaving might be the only solution to a toxic situation, but that is the harsh reality. So, as a student, doing all that you can to ensure that you will be appreciated and fulfilled in the position you accept is worth the effort.

Kathleen Barker is clinical assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. She is the author of At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press).

PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported

Tom sent his supervisor a chapter of his PhD thesis to read six weeks ago. He can’t start on the next chapter until he receives feedback on what he has already done. But he has had no response despite chasing up his supervisor – with whom he gets on well personally – several times. Indeed, he has not even received an acknowledgement of his email. And he knows that when he does finally receive a reply, there will be no mention of the delay, let alone an apology. He knows that because this has all happened before.

But this time the situation plays out even more egregiously. After Tom has waited for two more weeks, he finally hears back – a full two months after his initial email. But his supervisor has checked only the first two pages and the last page of his chapter, ignoring everything between.

Tom is frustrated, but he thanks his supervisor for the feedback and does not challenge her over the delay. How can he when he is entirely dependent on her to get him through the PhD submission process and to supply a good reference for subsequent job applications? Besides, sustaining a complaint would come down to his word against hers – and she is senior and well respected in the department and the university. No one would believe him. And even if they did, would it really be worth the hassle of getting another supervisor allocated to him in his final year – and, in the process, acquiring a bad reputation in the department for being the one who “made a fuss”?

So Tom soldiers on. Eventually, after much delay, he finishes his thesis. But is it ready for submission? He points out to his supervisor that he does not believe that the thesis has been checked properly, but she tells him to stop worrying, to take responsibility for his work and to be confident in its quality and in his ability to defend it. So he takes the plunge and submits. But he spends the next two months worrying that he might fail, rendering the past four years of hard work a complete waste of time.

This is a true story. And it takes only a few cursory searches of online PhD forums to see how common such scenarios are. PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported. Hence, even the most toxic student-supervisor relationships often persist long beyond the point of dysfunctionality, sometimes leaving the student with mental health problems.

I believe that this happens primarily because supervisors’ responsibilities are rarely clearly defined and because supervisors are not accountable to anyone for carrying them out. So I make the following recommendations:

• Training for supervisors must be compulsory
• Supervisors must be held accountable to someone senior in the department, and PhD students should be made aware of who that is
• Supervisors must be required to respond to their PhD students’ emails within three days, barring any type of leave
• Supervisors’ responsibilities need to be outlined clearly in a handbook that is available to both supervisors and students. It should also be made clear to students how much of their supervisors’ time each week or month is allocated to giving them feedback so that they are not made to feel like a burden
• Students must be assigned a mentor who is not close to their supervisor or in the same research team – ideally in another department altogether. This person can help to alleviate concerns and act as an intermediary when necessary
• There should be an anonymous procedure within each department that PhD students can use to complain or give feedback about their supervisor
• Supervisors should be formally encouraged to ask their students annually how they could better support them. This should be part of supervisors’ yearly appraisals.

In the absence of such steps, such stories as the one above will continue to write themselves over and over again.

If a relationship works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. Supervising PhDs, I have been directed along paths that I would not have discovered otherwise

There is no doubt in my mind that the best part of being an academic over the years has been supervising PhD students. I cannot remember how many I have supervised, but the number runs to well over 80, and I have examined even more than that.

I am still in touch with many former students and examinees, and have been delighted to follow their careers wherever they are in the world. If a relationship between supervisor and postgraduate works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. I have learned so much from supervising PhDs, and have been directed along new paths that I would not have discovered otherwise. There have been occasions when a student would arrive in my office with a bag full of books that he or she felt I should read: a living demonstration of the fact that it is not always the supervisor who provides all the bibliographical information.

I always start by telling students three things: that I will read every word they write in draft and then in final copy; that if they can get me to approve the thesis, given how tough I am going to be with them, then they have a very good chance of getting it past the examiners; and that they should not be discouraged if they find that their work is shifting direction after a few months. Writing a humanities PhD is an organic process, and if ideas have not started to develop by the end of the first year, then something is going wrong. Supervisors are particularly important at this stage, to provide reassurance and to help the student move forward.

Supervising PhDs is rewarding because you can see the process of intellectual development unfolding before your eyes. But it is also an intensely time-consuming task. All the various calculations of hourly allocation for supervision are absurd: if you are going to supervise properly, then you have to be prepared to spend hours reading drafts and then talking to the student.

There are some supervisors who do not write anything on drafts, preferring to correct only a final version. I find this ridiculously unhelpful. The whole point of reading drafts is to give proper feedback, and in the case of international students this kind of detailed reading is essential. Academic writing courses help, but careful editing by a supervisor is vital.

Nor should a supervisor’s detailed corrections focus on content alone. They also need to address spelling, punctuation, style and structure. Sometimes I have proposed radical structural changes, such as moving material from a conclusion into the introduction and vice versa. Such suggestions can be responsibly made only after you do a final read-through of the whole thesis – and that final reading is essential because although you may have read individual chapters or sections over several years, only the student will have a clear idea of how they want it to fit together.

It is also important to provide a written summary of general points after reading each draft. I learned early on that trying to do this verbally does not work because a student is often anxious and so does not take everything in. An email with bullet points works best. It is also important to balance criticism with praise, so the summary should start out with something positive before moving on to the “however” part. But all criticism, however negative, should be presented in such a way as to offer solutions and to help the student with the next stage in writing.

One of the problems facing supervisors in the UK is that the hours they put in are never adequately acknowledged by university management. This is because the UK has had to try to catch up with the kind of structure for doctorates that operates in US universities, and often PhD students have been tagged on as extras to someone’s academic workload. In the humanities, there have also been (and remain) some curious ideas about the need for a supervisor to be a “specialist” in exactly the same area as the student. Not only can this impose undue pressures on specialists in popular fields, it is also conceptually misconceived. Supervision should take both student and supervisor down relatively unexplored paths.

When it comes to choosing an examiner, practices vary widely. I have heard colleagues state firmly that the student should have no input, but I consult with mine because it is important to find out whether they have been in contact with any potential examiners. Also, despite clear guidelines, some universities still do not appoint anyone to chair the viva, which means that if a student feels hard done by, there is no independent witness. That only makes the choice of examiner even more important.

I don’t understand why supervising PhDs should be seen as a chore, rather than as a unique opportunity to engage with the brightest minds of younger generations. My research would be so much poorer without the help that I have received, directly and indirectly, from my doctoral students.

Susan Bassnett is professor of comparative literature at the universities of Warwick and Glasgow.

The degree was not awarded. Yet years later I discovered evidence that the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

Some students cheat. That’s clear from numerous articles in the press. But is this a one-sided view? How often is the examiner’s performance questioned or subjected to independent scrutiny? For postgraduates in particular, this is no trivial matter: any bias or lack of honesty in an examiner can waste years of the candidate’s life and can degrade trust in the system.

My experience may not be typical, but it’s certainly an eye-opener for any postgraduate who assumes that the viva examination will be automatically fair and above board.

After an MSc, I completed four years of doctoral research at a major UK university. The results were formally approved by the relevant research council and were published as a series of seven papers in major, peer-reviewed journals.

Before the viva, I’d queried the choice of examiners, owing to perceived bias, but was overruled.

The degree was not awarded: the examiners claimed that none of my seven papers had deserved publication – even though they had satisfied a total of 14 independent referees. The examiners had decided all 14 were wrong.

So what did I do? I got on with my life. Years later, though, I discovered that my papers are cited in the examiners’ own publications: that is, the examiners had used them as valid references to support their own work. Incredibly, some of these papers had been referenced before my viva. Clearly, this was perverse, dishonest and highly unprofessional conduct: the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

I sent it five of the examiners’ publications that cite my papers, together with a copy of the examiners’ signed report. I asked for acknowledgement that the viva had been biased. But the university declined to comment; it said the complaint was “out of time”.

Where there is evidence of malpractice, it should not matter when the viva was held: bias was deliberate and obvious, and the university could have followed up. Hiding behind process is a deeply inadequate response to such a blatant and egregious case. Nowadays, so-called historic cases of injustice and abuse, some from many decades ago, are being recognised and investigated. So why is corruption in education treated differently?

Examinations might be more equitable if, before the viva, candidates were officially entitled to raise concerns about their examiners – any concerns being addressed independently of the college or university. Such adjudication might seldom be needed, but it should still be in place. Examiners, after all, are people. And people – from students to presidents – do not always possess the levels of integrity and honesty that we naively expect of them.

Candidates should not be expected to accept a particular examiner if they can offer valid reasons for not doing so. And any university that seeks to impose a disputed examiner should be asked to reconsider its definition of fair play. 

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

PhDs: ‘toxic’ supervisors and ‘students from hell’

How should universities handle breakdowns in PhD student-supervisor relationships?

Reader's comments (11)

You might also like.

Policing AI use by counting ‘telltale’ words is flawed and damaging

Making people paranoid about employing familiar and useful words is not the way to encourage responsible AI use, say Lilian Schofield and Xue Zhou 

Biden breaks silence to condemn US campus ‘chaos’

President says ‘order must prevail’ after police clear UCLA encampment

Third of UK students say they might drop out due to money worries

Apparent turnaround in nation’s finances has done little to alleviate financial pressure on students, according to new poll

How best should US universities respond to campus protests?

Tough decade-old experience with police violence taught California universities the value of restraint, though divisive politics may already be straining its ability to keep its ideals

Featured jobs

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

What to do if your phd advisor is ignoring you, published by steve tippins on june 27, 2019 june 27, 2019.

Last Updated on: 3rd June 2022, 04:35 am

“My PhD Advisor is ignoring me!” I hear this type of statement surprisingly often from students and clients. While sometimes it’s just a case of nerves on the part of the student, there are times when someone’s PhD advisor really is ignoring them.

In this post I will try to explain why your advisor might be ignoring you and possible actions that you can take.

What to Do if Your PhD Advisor Is Ignoring You

• Understand university policy
• Write your Chair
• Set up a phone call
• Ask for a new committee member

Jump to the Action Steps here.

Why is my Phd Advisor Ignoring Me?

Why do advisors ignore their students? Some simply feel that doctoral work should be an independent process–and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Others may be underpaid and overloaded with work. In rare cases some may actually be negligent. Either way, you’ll want to do something about it. But first let’s explore the possible reasons why your PhD advisor might be ignoring you.

Nervous tension

Is your PhD advisor actually ignoring you? It does happen, but if you’ve been living off of coffee and instant noodles and staring at your computer screen 23 hours a day for the past week, it may be worth evaluating if your perception is accurate.

The dissertation writing process can be enormously stressful. Sometimes, a student working late will discover a critical problem with their paper and email their advisor about it at 10 pm. 

They’ll wake up at 6:30 am to start work again and check their email, but there’s no response. They have breakfast and check again at 7:15. By 8 am, they’ve checked their email four times, each with increasing anxiety about the lack of response. 

Meanwhile, the professor is maintaining a healthy work-life balance by not checking his or her email outside of working hours. Depending on how many students a professor is advising and how many other responsibilities they have, they may not even get back to you within 24 hours. 

It’s a good idea to check in with your advisor when you start working together about what sort of response times you can expect, and how they prefer to communicate.

Perhaps email works best for them, or maybe they prefer to schedule a phone call. Maybe Wednesday afternoons are a particularly good time to be in touch. The more you can communicate with them about what works best, the better relationship you will have.

A culture of less support

Many doctoral students go through what I call the  “go wander in the woods and see what you find” model. See my post on this topic. Basically you are left on your own to find what you need to complete your study. While this can be overwhelming, it’s also incredibly rewarding to know that you did it almost all by yourself. 

Becoming a scholar capable of independent thought and research is part of the purpose of the dissertation requirement, so you may receive less support than you’re used to simply as a natural part of the process. Professors may expect you to be capable of handling many aspects of the process on your own.

However, you shouldn’t be left totally in the dark. You have a PhD advisor for a reason–because you need support designing your study, settling on your methodology, and refining your research questions. There is a difference between hand-holding and providing critical support, and a good advisor will understand this and be available for your needs, within reason.

Lower salaries

An additional factor to consider is how institutions pay advisors. At many schools, faculty are part time/adjuncts. This is very cost efficient for the school as minimal benefits are paid and tenure is not part of the equation. 

Under this scenario your advisor may be getting paid something in the neighborhood of $100 a month to work with you. This number may seem very low based upon your tuition dollars but it is very close to actual figures at several institutions (this could explain some of the turnover that you see among faculty).

With numbers like these, faculty may ration their availability to match compensation levels. I have never heard this stated overtly but in an economically rational world it would be easy to see this happen. Regardless of whether it is benign neglect or rational economic behavior, the end result is you waiting for responses.

What You Can Do if Your PhD Advisor is Ignoring You

If you find yourself in a situation where you are feeling neglected or that your submissions seem to have fallen into an abyss, there are some things that you can do. Don’t escalate to the last option immediately; there could be a legitimate reason for a delay and you don’t want to burn any bridges unnecessarily. 

Here are the steps you can take if your PhD advisor is ignoring you.

1. Understand university policy and gently hold people to it

Before you start contacting people, I suggest that you look into your school’s policy regarding document review times. Most schools have a policy that work must be returned within a certain time period. 

If you find that you are still within the allotted time then you will have to be patient and work on other things (for example, you can never spend enough time reviewing the literature). If, however, you find that your Chair/committee has exceeded the allotted time then move on to the next step.

2. Write your Chair 

Sometimes people forget or situations beyond their control arise. Respectfully reach out to your Chair and ask about the status of your most recent submission. This may get things moving and get you where you want to be.

3. Set up a phone call

If an email does not get the desired results, set up a call with your Chair. A phone call can allow you to express your concerns in a respectful way and let your Chair. Sometimes this is all that’s needed to get things back on track. 

4. Complain

If you still feel your PhD advisor is ignoring you, then it is time to bring your concerns to the attention of your academic advisor and perhaps the program director (or whatever title your school uses). 

Schools do not like to have students complain and when they do they usually take action. Your Chair does not like to hear from his/her boss that there have been complaints. This can clear things up quickly.  However, I urge you to exhaust all the other options first.

5. Ask for a new committee member

After all options have been exercised the last thing to try is to ask for a new Chair. Be aware that schools are reluctant to do this and even if they do, it can cause a delay as a new Chair is brought up to speed.

There are times when things move more slowly than expected. Some seem to be systemic and other times people need to be prodded to help things move forward. This is your degree, so it is up to you to both stay on top of things and remember to start with kindness. It really is true that catch more flies with honey. Good luck!

PS. If you’re looking for additional support, I also coach students who are in the process of writing their dissertations. Or, if you’re in need of an editor for your dissertation , we’ve got you covered.

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

What makes a good research question.

Creating a good research question is vital to successfully completing your dissertation. Here are some tips that will help you formulate a good research question.  What Makes a Good Research Question? These are the three Read more…

Dissertation Structure

When it comes to writing a dissertation, one of the most fraught questions asked by graduate students is about dissertation structure. A dissertation is the lengthiest writing project that many graduate students ever undertake, and Read more…

Choosing a Dissertation Chair

Choosing your dissertation chair is one of the most important decisions that you’ll make in graduate school. Your dissertation chair will in many ways shape your experience as you undergo the most rigorous intellectual challenge Read more…

Make This Your Last Round of Dissertation Revision.

Learn How to Get Your Dissertation Accepted .

Discover the 5-Step Process in this Free Webinar .

Almost there!

Please verify your email address by clicking the link in the email message we just sent to your address.

If you don't see the message within the next five minutes, be sure to check your spam folder :).

Hack Your Dissertation

5-Day Mini Course: How to Finish Faster With Less Stress

Interested in more helpful tips about improving your dissertation experience? Join our 5-day mini course by email!

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

When the relationship with your PhD supervisor turns toxic

Postgrads rely on their supervisors for help and support. But what happens when the relationship turns sour?

E mma Baker* felt like a failure when she quit her PhD after 18 months and started again from scratch. But the previously high-achieving student, who has a first-class bachelor’s degree in science, says she felt she had no choice when the relationship with her supervisor became toxic.

“My experiments weren’t working, which is fairly common,” she says. But, rather than sort it out with a bit of guidance, she was left to “bumble through” while her supervisor never showed up to the lab. After reaching breaking point, she pleaded with him for help, and it didn’t go well.

“He told me my experiments fail because I’m bad,” she says. Already overwhelmed, the comment knocked her confidence. After unsuccessful attempts to fix it with the help of an advisor, Baker left the “toxic lab environment” and restarted her PhD with a new supervisor. “There was this haunting feeling of ‘you’re a bad scientist’ over my head the whole time,” she says. She left science soon after graduating.

Supervision can make or break your postgraduate experience. The latest postgraduate experience survey , carried out by the Higher Education Academy, found that support from academic staff made the biggest difference to how students felt about their studies.

Many supervisor relationships break down, like Baker’s, be it due to conflicting working styles, micromanaging, or even bullying. So what does a toxic relationship look like? And what can you do about it?

A lack of support as a postgraduate can have a big impact on your life. Lucy Stewart got stuck with a supervisor who was disinterested in her work. He didn’t check in with her for months at a time, she says, leaving her isolated and stressed. “I developed an anxiety disorder,” she says. “I felt a lot worse about myself.”

In contrast, Hannah Richards felt bullied and micromanaged by her overbearing supervisor. “We have very different working styles and expectations,” she says. “She plans meticulously early on, but I prefer to pull things together at the last minute. And she isn’t flexible,” Richards says. “She forced me into this little box. I developed depression and didn’t finish my thesis in time.”

Most of the problems come down to poor communication, says Ian Fairweather, a researcher development manager at the University of Manchester. “So start a conversation early to set out expectations.”

But even relationships that start well can become tense. “There will be ups and downs, so know what’s normal,” says Darcey Gillie, from the careers service at the University of Sheffield. Don’t choose “the nuclear option” straight away; they may not be aware of the problem.

It helps to turn to other students for support, says Adam Dunn, an associate professor at the Australian Institute of Health Innovation. “Halfway through my PhD my dad was in jail, my girlfriend left me and started dating the guy in the lab next door. I felt isolated, stopped eating, and lost a lot of weight,” he says. “I assume my supervisor had no idea.” Because of his experience, he tries to be better with his students.

“Students tend to believe that everyone else gets on fine with their supervisor and it’s only them who doesn’t,” says Fairweather. “But most people have a disagreement at some point.”

If all else fails, you may be able to switch supervisors. Universities have different approaches to how and when you can do this. “Explain to your postgraduate coordinator why you think it’s not working,” Fairweather adds. “They’ll know how to go about it.”

If you have a co-supervisor, they may be able to swap roles with your main supervisor. Talk to someone impartial and confidential, like a careers adviser, to think through any implications for funding, scheduling and the relationships involved, says Gillie. Good supervision is a partnership and a mentorship. “Like a marriage”, she adds, it needs “honest communication, trust, understanding, shared goals, and the ability to compromise”.

If you’ve done all you can to fix a bad supervisory relationship, know you’re not alone and don’t blame yourself, says Baker. She eventually completed her PhD with the help of her new supervisor.

* Some names have been changed.

• Studying postgrad
• Guardian Students
• Higher education
• Postgraduates
• Universities

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

• Officially Grads

Do PhD students get fired?

By previousstudent March 18, 2015 in Officially Grads

Recommended Posts

previousstudent

If your adviser decides to terminate you, is this the same as being fired? On a job application, when asked if you were ever fired, do you have to write yes? 

My feeling is that the answer is no - lots of PhD students fall out, and to have to state you were fired... that just seems like schools would be putting many very smart individuals into an undesirable classification.

What is the right thing to write for reason for leaving the job? 

I had the worst kind of adviser - the kind who simply would not put an approval through even if you got a publication if he did not like you (this is just one of the awful things he did). In other words, he decided early on that he would never grant a student the PhD but kept them around just to have more students (I was funded by another organization). It was a terrible time of my life and I held on hoping something would change. He was nice to my face but made sure I could not succeed. I could have reported him to the school with proof of unethical behavior but felt I might win a battle but certainly would lose the war.

Any advice/input would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

Yes. If the university regaurds TA/RA/GA as employees, and you were in fact, terminated because of your performance in these tasks, that is fired. 

If you say were just a PhD student, and your advisor decides to drop you because of performance, that is getting kicked out of a program, not a job. 

This is terrible. I had no idea that was the case. I would have quit instead of holding out then. I was already looking for jobs. 

But your second statement does not really apply correctly to my situation - all PhD students were graduate assistants. So there is no such thing as just being a PhD student.

Hopefully I receive more responses. Thank you for your input.

St Andrews Lynx

It sounds more like "getting asked to leave the program", which isn't the same as formally firing you. I think that firing involves specific paperwork and admin/HR.

You can always check with your university ombudspeople for advice about your specific situation. 

juilletmercredi

You might have been informally considered a graduate research assistant in your program. But were you formally hired by the university as a GRA and your position terminated because of performance issues? All PhDs do research during their programs but not all PhDs are actually hired as formal employees of the university on GRAs.

Even then, I still think it's a grey area. Your employment as a GRA is contingent upon your student status. You could be performing fine at your job and still be terminated simply because you left the program; that's not really the same as getting fired from a formal job because of your performance. The important question is - if you list your PI as your supervisor, what would he say?

AndrewBworth

I have a very similar issue. My old advisor won't help me at all.

Also to note, you can be "fired" from a lab/by a PI, but not kicked out of the program. The two are not synonymous. 

I think the important thing is what the HR/hiring individuals would consider your dismissal, not the technical term. If your advisor will say he fired you and you don't list it, they will likely consider it unethical to not have put that you were fired. 

The technicalities of whether you were "fired" or not won't really matter in that case. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Already have an account? Sign in here.

• Existing user? Sign In
• Online Users
• All Activity
• My Activity Streams
• Unread Content
• Content I Started
• Results Search
• Post Results
• Leaderboard
• Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use