Those who supervise or assess dissertations should recognize that the power they exercise is easily abused and can result in the destruction of careers. As an illustration, I offer a story based on fact but with details altered to protect identities.
A PhD candidate, Ari, was seeking a doctorate in English and proposed writing a dissertation analyzing the works of the playwright Harold Pinter. As it happened, the department’s specialist in twentieth-century British literature did not believe Pinter an important enough figure to merit a dissertation. Ari argued at length, but the professor would not yield despite admitting never having read or seen a play by Pinter. Facing this roadblock, Ari approached another professor in the department who was not a specialist in the field but was willing to supervise the dissertation. A year later the work was completed, then approved by the advisor. At that point, the professor who had balked at the topic was appointed to Ari’s doctoral committee and insisted that the dissertation be expanded to include a chapter comparing and contrasting the plays of Pinter with those of Chekhov.
Months later, after the chapter was finished, the professor who demanded it declared Ari’s new version unsatisfactory and insisted that it be expanded, even though the dissertation would then be more than 500 pages. After the additional work was done, a defense was scheduled, but a dispute developed between Ari’s advisor and the professor who didn’t like the topic. The other members of the committee did not wish to antagonize either of the two senior professors, and finally, an agreement was reached that after major revisions the dissertation would need to be approved by both professors, including the one opposed to it. Ari appealed that decision to the department chair and to the dean of students, but neither would intervene. At that point, Ari, enraged and exhausted, judged the situation hopeless and decided to abandon the dissertation and change career paths.
Thus, the nightmare ended. Ari left the school, and the faculty and administrators involved considered the case closed.
Yet the story does not end there. A few years later, a member of the faculty in another department who was aware of the case and continued to be dismayed by the injustice of the outcome heard that a new chair had been appointed in the Department of English. That faculty member who had never forgotten Ari approached the chair and told the tale. The chair then shared the news that the professor opposed to the topic had recently retired, and the chair agreed that if Ari were willing to resume work, the case could be reopened. The concerned faculty member, after considerable effort, managed to contact Ari, who despite misgivings was persuaded to try again. Another member of the department who was asked to serve as advisor expressed willingness to do so if Ari agreed to reduce the length of the dissertation by half, a step Ari was pleased to take. Then a new committee was formed, all its members approved the dissertation, a defense was scheduled, and Ari easily passed. Eventually, the dissertation was published by a well-known press.
The ending was happy, but the process was unconscionable. These events suggest that all departments should have in place a committee of senior faculty members to adjudicate cases of students who at any stage in their graduate careers believe themselves aggrieved. The faculty who serve on that committee should be willing, if warranted, to rule against any departmental colleagues, no matter how distinguished.
Furthermore, an additional safeguard should be established: a university-wide faculty committee dedicated to considering student appeals of departmental decisions. To those who might reject this idea on the grounds that the agenda of such a committee would be flooded, I would reply that such a phenomenon would itself be the clearest evidence of the need for the committee.
Just as departments are required to obtain the school’s approval of curricular changes, faculty appointments, or tenure and promotion decisions, so they should be prepared to defend their decisions in student appeals. While checks and balances are a familiar guard against misuse of government power, they would likewise help restrain abuse of academic authority.
Admittedly, adding two levels of review does not guarantee an appropriate outcome, but at least the first level brings in the judgments of those not personally involved in the matter, and the second relies on the assessments of individuals not subject to departmental politics. Although no system is foolproof, schools can at least take steps to enhance the chances for students to be treated fairly.
The post A Graduate Student’s Nightmare first appeared on Blog of the APA.
Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)