PhD Discussion Forum

Sub-dean of faculty informed me that he had discussed with RDSO and recommended termination of my PhD candidature on the grounds of:
1. refusal to do what the supervisors want ie change the focus of my thesis and research questions in the write-up period!
2. written work not up to PhD standard.

What kind of an outfit was I in? and who monitors these academics?

I have a willing academic in another university who will help me with the write-up. However, I am unsure of the potential problems with Intellectual Property Rights over the thesis. Any supervisors/ academics out there who can shed light on this matter?

I've asked my MP to speak to the Vice Chancellor on the appauling management of my grievance. Also, I will be speaking to a student advisor from the Students' Union. According to the sub-dean, his decision needs to be endorsed by the Post Grad Student Audit Group. I doubt they will overturn his decision. This sub-dean is a bit gungho in managing students' problems and really thinks he has the power to sack students.
I've been advised to get out of the "toxic" environment and to finish it elsewhere. I just want to touch base with issues regarding IPR, should it be applicable. The academic who is willing to help me is from another university and is not sure about IPR. It seems it depends on whether the current university has broad shoulders or petty little ones. I have emailed staff from the Freedom of Information Act and no one had come back to me as to whether I can submit the thesis in another university.

Very late in the day, indeed, to decide that the work is not up to PhD standard. Upgraded in 2005 and fieldwork completed in 2006. The PhD was funded by one of the schools within the university, hence a university funded project between 2003-2006. The bullying and lack of supervision which I tolerated since the start of the studentship became unbearable in 2007 and I requested for a change of supervisors. It took the university ONE YEAR to release me from the incompetent supervisors. I approached a number of academics and found 3 who were willing to take over the supervision. Unluckily for me, the leading supervisor wanted me to change the focus of my thesis and the research questions, so that it would fit the findings! I checked this out with the ethics committee and was told that this is unethical and illegal, since they approved the study based on what was submitted to the ethics committee. Communications broke down. I requested for a change of supervisors this year in May and it took them 6 months to come to the present conclusion.
Clearly, the university apparatus is designed to drag the students through the system and hope that they will go away and die quietly. I've been following procedures and this is what happens. They take the high ground, hide behind procedures and think they are a law unto themselves. I was just about to write to THE and the Guardian as such treatment of PhD students must be highlighted and hopefully the VCs will wake up to the needs of students. Presently, you can't even make an appointment to see him! How ridiculous.

Am not quite clear why you would not co-operate with your new supervisor - they were simply trying to make your PhD sound decent in relation to the data you collected? Ethics committees love to create barriers but they would not really have known anything about your new research had you just gone along with the new supervisor's suggestions since they'd already approved your PhD research. People who sit on ethics committees in universities tend to be 'can't do' people, who love to create a fuss over nothing, and am not sure why you tried to create a hurdle for yourself by consulting them again. Lots of people's PhDs change during the course of 3+ years it takes to finish them. But to me at your stage, after already falling out with your first group of supervisors for whatever reason, it seems strange that you didn't want to get on and finish your PhD with your new supervision team and co-operate with their suggestions.

Hairui,

very sorry to see that is has gone so terribly wrong.

I think you are absolutely right: one cannot change the focus of the project once this has been nearly completed, as you say, this would go against the ethical approval and as such would not only be immoral yet also illegal.

Not sure whether this will make you feel worse; I had a meeting with my professor and supervisor, and the professor strongly criticised my project approach (which had been agreed with her previously!) yet she did accept that the focus could not be changed (as most of the data had already been collected). As such I will continue in the same way.

Again, I am sorry regarding the situation you are in at the moment, it sounds awful. Surely there must be an "Umbudsman at the university to help you? Or have you got access to any legal advice?

Thanks for the commiseration, guys and to Almostthere for being so understanding. I still think it is shocking that they have the gall to string students along to the final years of their PhD and then drop them like a hot cake. And I thought academics have enough brain cells to "Do the right thing". Well, it must be a case of same show and same monkeys all over the world and "benevolent Britain" is no exception. It was a good ole 'Pow wow' from you, Almostthere. Are you still going to finish what you started 10 years ago?
And Rick, how did the meeting of 24Nov went? Any resolutions.
Well, I have some good news to share. The academic from another university will discuss with his dean regarding finishing my thesis there. It'll be sometime in January before I can confirm transfer of university. Will keep all of you posted.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with me. And I thought I was the only one going through a PhD from Hell!

Yo Commonsense!
You made it sound as if I didn't want to play ball! How can you expect a PhD student to agree to changing the focus of the thesis and research questions when all fieldwork is done? I think a line has to be drawn and sometimes, supervisors don't always know the right thing! Three out of five PhD students were deferred at their final viva because the supervisors led them up a different path! I've always been reminded " Its your PhD and you take the advice you deem fit" by the supervisors themselves. And when the chips are down, the student gets it in the neck and is labelled "difficult" or "uncooperative". The sub-dean needs a good kicking up his backside for being so spineless! And if they start to cry IPR issues, they are clearly very ill informed. And like you said, I doubt they would since he had recommended termination of the PhD.
One question: Why should I let the sub-dean know that another university is willing to accept me? In the past, they have knobbled a head of school from another department to reject me. I trust they do will it again. The bowels of academia stings to high heavens.

So far the following people have apparently got it in for you:
Sub dean
RDSO
Post-graduate student audit group
First set of supervisors
Subsequent leading supervisor and new supervisors
I have to ask: why?! Universities are divisive places. Occasionally it's possibly to annoy/be annoyed by one faction, but I've never heard of a situation where pretty much the whole university has been set against someone without them having done something wrong.
I will admit, as lots of people, to having days where it feels like that -- but it's simply not the case.
Now, you need to try and be a bit more pragmatic about your attitude to this situation if you hope to get a PhD.
Maybe try and sit down with your old supervisors with a specific list of things you want to find out:
(i) how did they expect the changes to affect your funding situation
(ii) how might you improve your academic writing
(iii) would the previous direction of your thesis have any hope of passing...
etc...
It's hard to admit that you're not always right, but necessary.
If I was the Dean at your new university I would be extremely disturbed to find the number of people you've taken issue with and probably (resultantly) not want to offer you a place. This is in part of your own making though, not some sort of academic conspiracy.