Collaboration Over Control

“I want to be coachable, but not a doormat.” That was a comment I heard during a recent conversation with a doctoral student who was describing an experience they had with their dissertation chair. The student had put together a research prospectus outlining their dissertation project, which was building off their previous published research. Initially, the student’s dissertation chair was amenable to the project.

But unfortunately, after interpersonal conflict and pushback between two committee members around the project, the dissertation chair came to the student and said, “We need to revamp this entire project. You’re not going to do this anymore.” As you could imagine, the student was shocked by the turn of events.

That conversation sparked this article because, as dissertation chairs, we have a lot of power over the futures of our students. Yet I continue to hear countless stories from current students and recent doctoral degree recipients about their experiences interacting with faculty members and how that power was used much more to control than to collaborate.

What if the dissertation process was not rooted in such control by the dissertation chair? How would dissertation chairs have to shift their mindsets and mentoring practices to make collaboration the norm instead? I have found that faculty members can take two key steps to foster a dissertation chair–student relationship of collaboration rather than control.

1. Recognize rather than project perceived limitations. From my experience advising doctoral students through the dissertation process, I have had to become more reflective around my own thesis-writing experience. Through this reflection, I have one insight that has stuck with me: As faculty members, because advising doctoral students is not a skill we are explicitly taught, our advising approach is drastically shaped by our own experiences—both positive and traumatic. It is important to consider how we can easily project our own limitations onto our students.

For example, a doctoral student shared with me their strategic plan to write their dissertation. The plan had them writing roughly one chapter every four to five weeks. When they told me that goal, I thought it was doable because I see students do that quite frequently. However, when they shared the document with their chair, the chair said, “It’s too ambitious, and you need to change that goal.” Doing so put the student on an 18-month timeline to finish rather than 10 months as they had originally planned.

While for some people the word “ambitious” makes perfect sense, if you have had an experience with an adviser whose approach was to damper your goals, the word “ambitious” can be triggering to hear. As I mentioned in a previous IHE column, our words as faculty members hold significant power. For the student I was talking to, this comment was demoralizing and rattled their confidence.

And when we really unpack this situation, an important question to ask is, why would the faculty member say the goal was ambitious and then ask the student to change the goal? From my experience supporting doctoral students, these types of comments sometimes come from faculty members projecting their own limitations onto the student. How could this conversation have been reimagined?

When presented with such a scenario, I don’t impose any limitation I might have based on my abilities and experience for my students. Instead, I will typically respond with, “Thanks for bringing me your plan. What can I do to support you achieving this goal? And what is the backup plan just in case your timeline doesn’t work out?”

By having a conversation like that, you can demonstrate confidence in the student while still nudging them to consider a backup plan. That minor change doesn’t entail you giving up power but rather empowering your student. And that leads me to my second recommendation.

2. Empower students to make their own mark. The more I attend academic conferences and talk with doctoral students and faculty members, the more I continue to hear and see what I call the mini-me advising method. Simply put, this method is one where a chair attempts to curate a dissertation experience like they had as a student. Some common characteristics of that approach include:

• Attempting to control the entire dissertation project as dissertation chair rather than letting the student take more ownership and control over the direction of the project.
• Chairing through “tough love” because that was what you experienced when you were writing your own thesis. This can show up in the tone and manner in which you speak to your doctoral students.
• Encouraging a doctoral student to do a particular dissertation project because it supports your research agenda, funding and/or lab—and then vehemently opposing any deviation from that plan.

If our goal in the academy is to advance academic knowledge and spark innovation, approaching mentorship in this way can be counterproductive. Moreover, if we continue to replicate our work and experiences through our students, how do we expect advances to occur within our respective disciplines?

To foster a collaborative environment over a controlling one, our advising approach must be different. Rather than creating mini-mes, we must be more willing to empower our students to innovate. What could that look like? Here are a few strategies to consider:

• Allow your student to dictate their research interests­—even when they do not support your research agenda.
• Use words that affirm your student. That way, if you ask for changes within the project, the student recognizes you are coming from a place of collaboration and support, not criticism and control.
• When your student comes to you with a project that falls outside your methodological expertise, use it as an opportunity to either engage in your own professional development to better support students or connect the student with an expert who is best suited to counsel them. That will allow and encourage your student to grow into the expert they desire to be.

My hope is that we create an environment of collaboration rather than control, where students feel safe to develop dissertations that push disciplinary boundaries, knowing their chair and program faculty welcome and encourage their efforts. We have an important opportunity to be at the forefront of innovation. We should not allow our own beliefs and advising practices to hinder the furtherance of students’ research.