Research > My Research > Dissertation > Ch 4.11



--- breaking the silence ---

Toward a Theory of Women's Doctoral Persistence

© Roberta-Anne Kerlin, 1997

Advisor/Advisee Relationships

All the women in this study, with the exception of Sarah, chose women faculty members to serve as their primary advisors. In Sarah's program students were expected, out of courtesy, to speak with each of the faculty members before deciding who they might best work with as an advisor. Students were expected to choose an advisor by the end of the first or second quarter in their program. Sarah found it frustrating to have to chose an advisor so early in the program.

How they expected us to know who to put on a committee when we didn't even know what we would take, and in many instances didn't know what our dissertation topic would be by that time, is beyond me. I was the only one in my cohort to actually stick to this time line, however.

Sarah met with each of the faculty members until she had spoken with all but Ben, the faculty member who had conducted her admission interview. Although Ben is an internationally recognized researcher, Sarah had a bad taste in her mouth because of the way he acted during her interview. She thought he was pompous and overbearing. She met with him nonetheless and although they did share some common interests she didn't see how she could possibly work with someone she found to be so "gruff and intimidating." Ultimately, Sarah's reasons for selecting Ben as her advisor were related as much to her perceptions about the kind of person he was as they were to his subject expertise.

[During our meeting] the phone rang, and it was the vet calling to tell him that he (the vet) had to put Ben's dog to sleep. Ben teared up, and got very emotional. Then he called his wife to tell her. He was extremely upset. And I suddenly realized, watching all this, that the way he presented himself to students was just a cover. That he was, underneath it all, a very sweet person who was probably very afraid of being hurt by others. By the time I left the meeting, I had decided to ask Ben to be my advisor. The rest, as they say, is history.

Developing a working relationship with her advisor took a good deal of time. For the longest while Sarah didn't know what to expect from him. He edited everything she wrote with a fine-tooth comb, particularly in the early stages of her work and she started to see him as hyper-critical and began to wonder whether anything she developed would ever be good enough for him. Sarah recounted how it took a long time for both her and Ben to learn how to work together.

There were days when I seriously didn't think I could take working with him, but in my department there were literally no other options .... let's face it, faculty are not generally good "People people." They are better with ideas and data than with interpersonal relationships .... As a student, you're at the mercy of your advisor. If he or she is having a bad day, nothing you have written will pass muster. If, on the other hand, they're having a great day, you can do no wrong.

Sarah also noted differences in their intellectual styles as something they had to work through: "he will read EVERYTHING (and remember it, too, damn his soul), while I will read what is necessary and/or interesting or relevant. I tend to cut to the chase."

Sarah noted that Ben had only one other female advisee and although she indicated that this might have been problematic, she recounted no specific examples. However, she did observe significant differences in interaction styles that she attributed to gender.

Sarah recounted that she and a number of students, alumni and faculty from her institution, about 15 in all, had gone out to dinner one evening while attending a conference. She asked Kathy, one of her colleagues, a question about the keynote speaker's address and Dan, a male colleague who was a year behind her cohort, "launched into a 20-minute lecture about it" even though she hadn't asked him. Kathy "never got a word in. By the time Dan had finished his 'lecture' no one else wanted to speak." Two nights later Sarah and some of the same students were again discussing issues pertinent to their studies and Dan launched in another verbal attack.

Nothing we said was defensible, and if we couldn't immediately provide facts and figures, he sneered and suggested that we didn't know what we were talking about. Oddly enough, [another male colleague] started challenging us, too, although not in the nasty way that Dan did. But it was quite obvious that we were being attacked.

Eventually, Kathy and I just gave up. It was no longer an exchange or a fun conversation; there was no dialogue. When Kathy and I got back to the room, we looked at each other and said "what the hell was that all about"? We also discussed it most of the next day. It seemed to us that what Dan and Ron had done was what other faculty members had done to panel members or discussants at the various sessions. Challenge, combat, attack, poke holes, etc. Except, once we reflected on this more, we realized that it was mostly the _male_ faculty who acted this way. Sessions attended primarily by women had more dialogue and interaction, less trying to prove what you know. So we figured that Dan and Ron had simply picked up on this verbal style, especially given the surroundings. Kathy was willing to forget all about it once we got home; I on the other hand got madder the more I thought about it and sent Ron a stinging two+ page e-mail message about the whole situation. To which he responded that he had been really uncomfortable with the way the conversation had gone, but couldn't figure out why he had gone along with Dan. He acknowledged that a lot of what I had said about the combative nature of the men's speech was probably true. He also hated that he had fallen into that trap. I still remind him of that incident once in a while--he still thanks me for teaching him a valuable lesson.

Sarah was also in a unique position to observe how the nature and opportunity for mentoring in the advisor/advisee relationship may be experienced very differently by male and female doctoral students. After completing her doctorate Sarah began to date Ron, a colleague in her program who, coincidentally, also had her former advisor, Ben, as chair of his own doctoral committee. She describes her perceptions of the relationship between Ron and Ben in contrast to her own relationship with Ben.

For him, conversations with Ben have usually taken on more the tenor of dialogues over theory, etc. It appears to me, from hearing Ron talk about his conversations with Ben (although I have never been around when they have these talks), that Ben has always viewed Ron more as a colleague. Not that Ron would say so, but it sounds that way to me. Of course, as Ron and I have discussed, he and Ben have been able to have a different relationship because of their gender. For instance, there have been several conferences that Ron and Ben have attended where they roomed together in the hotel. You and I both know that you have very different conversations with someone that you have known in those circumstances. I think (again, my perceptions, not necessarily reality) that Ben and Ron have known each other long enough ... and have shared many long conversations and as a result, Ron probably didn't look upon Ben as being as much of an authority figure as I did. I never had the opportunity to just shoot the shit with Ben late at night, or discuss world events while watching the news. You know, the kinds of conversations you tend to have with someone when you stay in the same room for three or four days. So for me, there was a sense of formality and distance in my relationship with Ben for quite a long time. It took the better part of four years to get to a more comfortable, more collegial relationship.

Tracy chose as her advisor, a faculty member who had served as second reader for her master's thesis - a professor she admired for her enthusiasm, her supportive attitude toward students, her teaching abilities and her genuine interest in her subject. She described the relationship with her advisor as "comfortable" but "very professional."

She is supportive but we have a very professional relationship. We have only a few times acknowledged our mutual experiences in dealing with the predominately male world of academia. That was a good experience to have with her. I feel that she is helpful but she keeps her distance. I don't feel close to her at all. And I do find her slightly intimidating at times because she's always so busy. She is also chair of the dept.

Tracy described herself as the kind of person who generally doesn't like to show her vulnerability. However, she didn't feel her relationship with her advisor suffered in any way because of this and she wasn't inclined to want to change anything about the relationship. Tracy seemed to feel that if her advisor "insisted on a topic" that she would be able to speak with her about it. She described the relationship as "mutually respectful" and felt she could listen to her advisor's suggestions, but she felt equally comfortable in choosing what most interested her. Tracy described her advisor as "always collecting articles and titles and such for suggestions for reading which is supportive." On two occasions Tracy described slightly different views of her advisor's response to work she had submitted. On one occasion Tracy indicated that her advisor reviewed her work in a timely fashion and provided "constructive comments." This Tracy described as "good enough for minimum." However, on another occasion Tracy indicated that her advisor didn't seem to review her work that carefully and at that time Tracy felt she had better input from others on her committee.

I later asked Tracy why she hadn't shared, with her advisor, her reasons for not wanting to pursue the topic of the "sick body". I wondered whether Tracy felt there was an adequate level of trust in their relationship to be able to share her reasons to her advisor - and I wondered what Tracy thought might have been the outcome if she had discussed her reasons. I also wanted to know if Tracy's resistance to following her advisor's suggestion had created any further awkwardness or difficulty in their relationship.

I think that my relationship with my advisor is good but is not very personal. She is supportive professionally but I don't ever seek her support for other things. Expressing the need or desire to avoid certain topics of study for personal reasons would reveal to my advisor a dimension of my personality which I don't care to share with her. That, I believe would or could create an awkwardness. Not sharing with her that I associate sickness and especially sick mothers with a very personal experience was a way to avoid awkwardness and making my advisor feel that I am only suited to study certain topics. I don't want to limit myself professionally and I do have the feeling that showing such an emotional motivation for avoidance is the kind of thing that works against you. I don't know why we are socialized to work this way, but especially women have working against them the notion that they are too emotional and/ or moody to be entirely professional. Even though I was dealing with another woman, I was dealing with a woman who I know may see my emotions as a weakness.

Although Tracy was somewhat reserved in the degree of personal disclosure she allowed herself in the relationship with her advisor, she felt she had developed a professional relationship with her advisor that had been "fairly positive." Her advisor had been very helpful, both during her preliminary exams and with the development of her ideas for the dissertation.

However, in early October of 1995, Tracy had an encounter in which she felt she had been blindsided by her advisor. Tracy had asked her advisor to write a letter of recommendation for her placement file. One day as Tracy was walking down the hall with a friend, her advisor approached her and informed Tracy that she wouldn't be able to write the letter of recommendation if she didn't know where Tracy was in her writing.

Well, I felt like I was busted because though I had started writing, I actually took a vacation and found it hard to catch up on all my teaching etc. and get back into writing all at the same time. She asked me to give her all that I had written even though I told her I was in the middle of my 1st chapter and had nothing that was ready to turn in. She insisted, so the following Monday I gave her about 14 pages of incomplete work.

A few days later Tracy's advisor called her into her office.

... she ... asked me questions that were very clearly answered in the pages i gave her. (She has a reputation for not reading anything) After about 5 minutes of that, she told me how disappointed she was with my progress (based solely on the quantity of pages that I had given her). I told her that she forced me to give her work that wasn't ready yet and that I was working steadily (though not swiftly) and felt confident about my progress. She decided to insult me by telling me "You are not going to get a job." I stared at her unsure of the context she was referring to, in the dept? in my life? in a university for next year? So I said to her, "what do you mean?" and she replied that no one was going to hire me at the rate I was moving on my dissertation. "I'm aware of the job market," I said to her, thinking that her bitchiness was utterly unbelievable. I didn't want to bother explaining to her how I wanted to put my best foot forward knowing that my chances are slim, how I hear going through the motions is worth it even if nothing comes up because you'll be really prepared when you have a little more solid ground to stand on the following year, etc.

Anyway, I ended up asking her if she was going to write me a rec letter or not. I wish that I didn't even have to get one from her because she is well known for writing shitty letters. She says "Of course" as if I'm silly for asking but adds that she's not going to "LIE" about where I am in my work. Jesus! No one was asking her to lie about anything. The woman has known me for 5 years, she worked with me on my Master's, now she's my diss director. I figure she should know me well enough to recommend me. Why the schizophrenia?????????

Beyond "really hating to write recommendation letters" Tracy couldn't figure out what had gone wrong. Three of Tracy's friends had similar experiences with this same professor. Two women had asked her to write references for a particular fellowship and were informed that they had no chance of receiving the fellowship in question. In the end, both found other references and were later awarded the fellowship.

She told one man who had applied for a job in another dept since his funding in ours was out that she had called the sec'ys in that dept and they had no idea who he was. He was stunned and felt a little bit violated that she had gone asking about him behind his back. She insisted that his chances of getting a job there were next to impossible and she wanted to know if he would consider taking a job back in our dept or did he want to wait on the other dept. Being offended by her lack of diplomacy and knowing more about that dept than she did, he told her he'd rather work for them because he'd be more marketable in the end w/ the extra teaching experience. He, of course, got the job in that dept.

Tracy found it difficult to understand her advisor's motivations for treating Tracy and her colleagues in this way.

I can't figure the moral of the story either. This woman clearly has a problem performing her duties and supporting the grad students in our dept. Funny thing is she's the chair of the dept too. Eventually she will become like the former chair, I suppose, so burnt out and bored that she doesn't remember who anybody is and no one will want to work with her.

For Tracy, her advisor's behaviour presented as a negative role model and although this gave Tracy cause to question her commitment to academe, Tracy's confidence in her own beliefs and values has remained strong.

I used to be scared a little that I risked becoming like this if I stayed in academia. I don't believe that's true. I'm much too self-reflective. I'm much too concerned for others (even at my own expense sometimes). I believe too much in the role of education, the power of education to change lives. There's some of my optimism again.

Denise first connected with her advisor when she was in the process of having her status changed from master's student to doctoral student. It had been this professor who had advised Denise, in the latter stages of the process, to write a simple letter to the faculty requesting a change in her status.

She must have sort of bonded to me then, because later that same semester after she'd made sure my status was changed, she claimed me as her student when my advisor (just a designation for official purposes and a person to talk with about coursework) had to reduce her student load. She told me what she'd done and asked if it was alright. At the time I felt a little strange about it. I'd been doing fine with my advisor. But within no time I was very pleased because my chair has been available and helpful at every turn in the road.

This new advisor/advisee relationship worked well for Denise. Whether it was because of the bond they ultimately developed or some other reason, Denise later described having chosen to work with her advisor.

As to the interpersonal side of things, I chose her because I work well with her. I'm not intimidated by her. She clearly supports me and my work. She praises me, tells me I'm making good progress. In terms of tasks, my chair and I would talk about what needed to be done and who needed to do it. When I needed her help to write a letter, check into procedures or the like, she was always more than willing. When she saw something, like a grant that I should apply for she would inform me and help me meet the deadline.

Although Denise wouldn't say that she and her advisor were friends, she did suggest their relationship bordered on friendship. Occasionally they would do things like have meals together. They knew each others' partners and sometimes they did things as a foursome, but throughout her studies Denise saw her advisor more as a colleague than a friend.

I enjoy talking with her. She's very bright and puts things together in interesting ways. Her degree is in English and she's done lots of feminist work so we have those things in common, as well as a no-nonsense approach to all of this. She expresses her confidence in my abilities. She's a confident person also which helps. We negotiate the power difference between us. I've never seen her as a "superior." There's not really a single word to describe the relationship or roles that we play. It changes with the task. It's never adversarial. Even when she was on one side of an issue that arose at the university and I on the other, we were able to respect one another.

Denise recalled two incidents with her advisor that reflected how they managed conflict in their relationship. The first incident occurred when her advisor had edited a letter Denise was writing as part of her proposal.

She had asked to read it to offer feedback and instead of marginal notes or a narrative reply, she had crossed through words, rewritten sentences and the like. As a comp person, I find this pedagogically unsound. As a writer I was offended. I took the letter into her office and asked her about it. She told me that she had done it that way because she felt that the tone for this particular audience (a full dept. approval was needed) was crucial. I asked her if this was the way that she would be responding to chapters. She explained her normal procedure which was less intrusive and presumptuous. I told her that for this it was fine but that I would not want her making changes in my diss. That I valued her suggestions and concerns but that I wanted and needed to maintain ownership of the language. Mostly this has worked out well.

The second incident occurred when Denise's advisor "had a very negative reaction" to one of the chapters Denise had submitted. Up to that point Denise had been sending chapters to her advisor and then continuing on to the next chapter, saving the revisions for later. But "her complaints about this chapter were so strong" that Denise chose to revise it almost immediately. At first Denise was upset about her advisor's disagreements with the chapter. However, after rereading it, Denise agreed that the chapter needed reorganization.

So I did that ... I pulled aside some of the material that she thought inappropriate. I set it off with its own subtitle. She wanted the material pulled, but I thought that some members of the committee who were less familiar with this area of scholarship would need what she saw as old hat.

Denise moved some of the text into a separate section and wrote an introduction to the chapter, inviting readers to skip the section in question if they were comfortable with her explanation of the material. This strategy enabled Denise to retain the text that she wanted to keep in her dissertation.

This seemed to satisfy her. And I think she was pleased that I had acted so quickly on her other suggestions. It was a painful process for me. I spent several angry resentful days, but in the end, I made peace with both her and the text.

Denise never had the opportunity to gain any knowledge or insight into the nature of her advisor's own doctoral experiences. She did share some further insights she had about the ways in which her relationship with her advisor differed from her own familial relationships.

I think my advisor wants me to succeed. Unlike my mother, she defines that based on what I say success means, not some picture in her own head. I am direct, but I do many things differently from other students. She doesn't have a problem with this. She trusts me to do what needs to be done. For example, her partner chides students not to leave campus because they won't be motivated to finish. When I [decided to move away from campus], we talked about it. She expressed no concern about my dedication ... Occasionally she helps me negotiate what the system wants and how I am willing to meet that demand.

It's difficult for me to be direct and honest with [my family]. But that's not the case at all with my chair. Perhaps it is partially that I have always seen us as equals. I entered the PhD program as a 31 year old woman. I had lots of experience in the world. I didn't see myself as a student (or child) needing guidance. So I wasn't looking for a maternal or parental figure. I like equal relationships and have worked on having healthy ones. When things are not equal I fall into old family patterns. Guess that says my chair was also willing and I think grateful for that type of relationship. She doesn't hold my hand. She doesn't need to. I understand the traffic patterns on the street. And when I cross against the light, I know the risks I'm taking.

Throughout her program Denise's partner and her advisor provided the kind of support that she felt she needed to see her dissertation through to completion.

They're both people who have been through it. I think that's an important element to their support. They could offer advice and provide context beyond my experience. They've both been good at encouraging me and believing in me. I think that can't be stressed enough. I don't have any doubts that these two, among others, expect that I will finish, that I have what it takes. That belief carries me through when I have self-doubts.

The difficulties Denise encountered with her admission process and the changed rules around comprehensive examinations were problems that demonstrated to her that "faculty were not good at following through. They were constantly changing rules in the middle of things."

Although Denise wasn't affected personally, she described one of the hidden rules in her department - "what you don't ask specifically, they won't tell you" - and the impact sabbaticals had on some of her colleagues' programs.

If an advisor isn't forthright about when they have a sabbatical or how they are going to deal with it, students get blindsided. Schedules for grad students are often totally disrupted. Students should be told when they enter that they should ask about sabbaticals when forming committees, but most only discover this when a committee member or chair is on the way to the airport saying they'll be back in touch in X-number of months. It's ugly.

Zoe was the only one of the seven women who eventually had two co-chairs on her committee. Zoe wanted to do an ethnographic study of prostitution, but the faculty she spoke with in the department had quantitative orientations to research and repeatedly told her she needed a working hypothesis that she could quantify. Zoe couldn't seem to think of anything that would work when she thought about the population and issues she wanted to study. After several false starts she found a new assistant professor who had done a qualitative research dissertation of her own and who found merit in what Zoe wanted to do.

she immediately looked at me and said that of course i could design a study of the nature i was talking. i just needed to think about research differently than i had ever heard it discussed in this department .... So, from that first meeting on, i had my topic, my approach, my dissertation chair (well-- co-chair), and the support that had been lacking through so much of my graduate training.

This new assistant professor had been at the university for only a year and Zoe was advised to ask her advisor of four years to serve as co-chair. He had been at the university for about 25 years and would add credibility to the committee. Being a "hard core quantitative scholar and researcher," he was more than a little reluctant to be part of an ethnographic study, but Zoe finally managed to convince him. However, the next several months proved difficult for Zoe because of the differing perspectives of her committee members about the nature of research.

The credibility was there, but so was the foundation for a lot of struggles through the next 18 months of my life. The quant people on my committee just couldn't understand what i was doing and, largely because of this, kept finding reasons to "question" what i was doing and its viability and credibility.

Throughout that fall, Zoe worked closely with the female co-chair of her committee being careful to include the male co-chair in everything they did. However, it soon became apparent that her 'quant' co-chair was having difficulty seeing the efficacy of her research. Increasingly, their meetings were focused on informing him about ethnographic research "and getting him up to speed" rather than on Zoe's research.

it became apparent that if i were to forge ahead i would have to limit his input as i was wasting too much time and energy continually trying to "educate" him about my type of research. So, soon she had me writing little short pieces to her and she would serve as the go-between, filling him in on what i was doing.

For the remainder of her program Zoe worked most closely with her female co-chair who was a "very strong feminist." Zoe described the relationship with her female co-chair as professional and collegial.

She was also quite a "task master" and she will admit to that. However, at all times as she pushed me she also did so while reminding me of how valuable my work was and how qualified and competent i, as a professional, was. She pushed me, both from a pragmatic sense and from an intellectual sense. She set schedules for me that i was expected to maintain-- perhaps i should say that we conjointly "negotiated" schedules. But, when they were made, i knew i needed to stick to them. On the intellectual side of things, she always challenged me to think more deeply than i was and to look at things from a different angle/perspective .... She built my belief in myself and that continues today. We now have moved our relationship to a different plane, becoming truly colleagues and friends.

Zoe felt very comfortable confiding in her female co-chair about both the interpersonal and task dimensions of their relationship.

She assumed a very assertive and forthright position when dealing with conflicts. And, when conflicts occurred, she was always quick to remind me that it was *her* job to resolve them. My job was at all times to stay focused on the research and the writing. My male co-chair, when he did become involved, was more autocratic and, in many ways, more underhanded. At times he created conflict by passing information onto me about my committee members that had little, or possibly nothing, to do with my dissertation. This did, however, add stress to my dissertation experience. I learned early in the process to take any concerns i had to my female co-chair and when the male co-chair played what can only be described as "power games" i also notified my female co-chair of these and she immediately intervened, again reminding me that my focus was to be the research.

Zoe's relationship with her male co-chair was less satisfying.

Our relationship was often one that can best be described as paternal--he tried to "parent" me. As my dissertation process moved along our relationship became characterized by distrust. I became guarded in my interactions with him and i felt at all times that he viewed my work as "less than credible," due in large part to his feelings about the type of work i was doing (qualitative) as opposed to the type of work he typically undertakes (quantitative).

Having described her relationship with her male co-chair as paternalistic, I asked Zoe if she thought there were any similarities or differences between her relationship with her advisors and her relationship with her parents. Zoe described the relationship with her female co-chair as "so collegial and egalitarian in nature that it stood in direct contrast" to the relationship she had with her parents. The relationship with her male co-chair was another matter.

I had never thought about the possibility that there would be similarities here, but that may well account for the feelings of inadequacy i always had with regard to my co-chair. He was, in many ways, autocratic, but always in a very subtle and insidious way. And i always found myself trying to "measure up" for him, but never feeling as if i really did. That is, in many ways, the feelings i always had about my relationship with my father.

Over the next several months, two events transpired that would test Zoe's patience and exacerbate her already high level of stress. Both events were related to her committee. First, Zoe learned that her co-chair, the qualitative researcher, the one member of her committee who had been so supportive of her work since the beginning, had accepted a position at another university. For reasons unknown to Zoe at the time, the university was threatening not to give her co-chair the usual one year leave to complete her committee responsibilities. This meant that not only would their remaining work together be conducted at a distance, but Zoe would have one year at best, and possibly less, to finish her dissertation.

The second event occurred later that summer after her qualitative co-chair had left the university to assume her new position. Zoe received an email message from her 'quant' co-chair asking if she had heard any student complaints being levelled against her other co-chair.

I honestly responded "no" and asked if there were something about my dissertation i should know about. Keep in mind that at this point all my experiences were being filtered through and around my dissertation, so i naturally assumed the credibility of my work was once again under attack especially since she was no longer here to "defend" it.

Zoe sent her 'qual' co-chair an email asking what these events might mean. Her co-chair had no idea what might have precipitated such allegations. Angered, she contacted Zoe's co-chair only to learn that two female students had made allegations of sexual harassment against her. She was furious at her colleague for contacting Zoe about the charges.

i was the *only* person in the department who believed her unequivocally from the onset and believe her i did when she told me the allegations were unfounded. However, neither she nor i had any departmental support for maintaining this stance, thus further alienating both of us from the rest of my committee and the department as a whole. The rumor mill went wild, there was talk that the university proper would not "recognize" her as official chair of my committee, and no one seemed to know what was "real" and what was "fabricated." In the midst of all this high drama i continued to write and teach full time. Exhausting!!!!

At one point i visited the department and was told that there were going to be 4 official charges of harassment leveled against her (two from students; two from profs in other departments), but no one could verify the validity of the claims. However, official word did come from the university's legal department that *no one* in my department could engage in any conversations in which her name appeared (faculty, staff, and grad students). Imagine my dilemma. i had to network with these people and no one was supposed to talk about my co-chair.

Zoe dealt with this problem by first passing everything to her female co-chair via email. Once Zoe had her stamp of approval, she systematically forwarded all her writing and chapters to individual committee members for their feedback and comments.

Helen described her choice of advisor as "another of those intuitive leaps" she sometimes makes. The same professor who had recommended the Pearsall book on "Explorations in feminist philosophy" had, at the time, made a strong impact on Helen. She reflected on their first meeting.

Her office was warm, a bit cave-like -- no windows, a desk lamp instead of the florescent lights, comfy chair for visitors, lots of books that looked read, wall hangings. She created a comfortable space for herself. I was simply but remarkably struck by the sense that she was a woman from whom I could learn a great deal. If it was philosophy I had to do to have her as an advisor, so be it. She was eventually named the chair of my comps committee and has recently agreed to be my dissertation advisor, though with a laugh. And she is a friend.

Although Helen described her relationship with her advisor as one of friendship, in the context of her master's degree, she described relationships with former mentors as one of the "most tricky things about growing up."

When I worked at the library ... I started out as mail sorter and gradually worked up to being professional staff -- on paper I was colleague, but I never got to the point of _feeling_ like a peer. Never quite made it after getting the masters and starting to teach (fixed-term, not probationary) in the same department as I'd gotten my masters in -- colleague perhaps, but not peer. I've wondered if one ever gets to be a peer of the mentor(s) with whom one studies or does one have to move on to find peers?

Helen describes her advisor as a person who is "efficient, never misses deadlines, [and] gets things done." In turn, Helen tries to allow her advisor plenty of time and asks only for what is necessary. Helen sees herself struggling more than her advisor with the 'imbalances' in their relationship. In part, Helen is concerned with issues she's read about - that she "will offend, step out of line, etc. and cause a rift in the relationship." Helen hasn't discussed this with her advisor, though she thinks she probably will.

Partly, this is related to her taking on the project with the mutual understanding that she might, at some time, feel she had to step out of it. Partly, it is my own struggle with the whole notion of becoming an academic. And I'm not sure 'imbalance of power' is what it's about so much as the intrusion of a somewhat artificial, temporary construct into the possibility of a long-term friendship.

Helen doesn't expect her advisor to be of assistance in her post-degree job search because her degree is interdisciplinary and she is not specializing, nor could she claim expertise, in her advisor's field of study. Other members of her committee, because of their prominence, may have some degree of influence in helping Helen get interviews.

Camila chose her advisor because of the great respect she had for her advisor's research and for her skills in bringing people together to work as a team and because of this Camila sometimes found it difficult to deal with her ambivalent feelings about her advisor. She described her advisor's behaviour as sometimes "weird."

she never lives up to her words so she talks good but does funny or does not good. funny not as in funny ha ha ha but funny as in weird i mean.

When Camila identified the most critical events and challenges she faced during her doctoral experience she described first, her relationship with her advisor.

> at two points in time i almost dropped out.

Camila described several issues that seemed central to her experience. She hadn't thought of her advisor's behaviour as "abusive" or "manipulative" at the time, but on reflection, these descriptors seemed appropriate to her.

i described how i was abused or i think it is abuse now. it was hard to realize though cos she is very good at making things look like she does them for you. but it was messy big time ... it makes you feel like you ought ta' protect her and be patient with her etc.

Camila often met at her advisor's home to discuss her work and during these meetings her advisor would turn the television on and would constantly switch channels while they were working.

it killed me.
this and other kinds of things like this made me explode once or twice and i told her i can t stand it and she hated me for that. once when i was trying to get past her editing of my first publication she exploded in tears for two hours about how nobody understood her etc. and we started talking and the minute i know i am arguing with her and she tells me get out of this house and don t come back or something like that and i said "i am not leaving" and i didn t and we fought literally for some time. it was a riot literally verbal riot i mean. d'ya'get a picture? these things went on for 2 years but i had 2 big fights with her--this one that i describe and another one. and i said what i thought and things changed a lot.

Although Camila was rarely reluctant to express her thoughts and feelings in these kinds of circumstances, she also recognized that doing so came with certain consequences.

this also created friction with some people who did not like me saying what i thought. same thing applies with my adviser.

Camila also found her advisor to be very controlling in their relationship.

my adviser controlled things pretty much and i had to negotiate with her.
she got mad at me once cos i called a meeting up to tell the committee how my plans had changed. she said i should never do that again. i still don t agree.

Camila's thoughts about withdrawing from her program on two different occasions, were echoed by her advisor, when at the end of Camila's third year, she suggested that Camila should get another advisor, but Camila refused to change advisors.

i told her i would not and if anything i would drop out. that made her mad as hell. i wanted her cos of her knowledge and i wanted her to be respectful of my needs and choices. if not, i was gonna drop ... the second fight was right before we went to argentina in the summer of 94 to work at the literacy world congress. i think i came back and finished due to my family's support down there. and due to my relationship with my boyfriend who was really nice. he was in argentina with me that year.

Camila's decision to finish her degree was also grounded in the remorse she carried for not completing her history degree years earlier at the University of Buenos Aires.

i wanted to finish and i would have felt bad hadn t i done it--i know. it relates to -- i think -- not having finished my history degree in argentina. i know already what it feels like to be or feel remorse for not having completed something, so i guess i was not gonna go thru that again. plus i was somewhat convinced that i should and wanted to do it.

Maggie's relationship with her advisor is one that has all but undone her resolve to finish her degree. Her advisor has a strong national reputation in her field and Maggie chose her, in part, because of her tremendous expertise in her subject area. Maggie took several courses with her advisor who held high expectations and standards of performance, but she had also been encouraging and supportive of Maggie's efforts.

Early in 1994, shortly after the birth of her daughter, Maggie resumed work on her proposal. She was feeling stronger and began to compose a new work that she would perform with a colleague. The rehearsal schedule was gruelling and it included an hour long commute each way. Maggie met with her advisor once or twice that semester and she read a little, but she wasn't making much progress on her proposal.

Then I read in the university newsletter that my advisor and two other colleagues had presented a conference session using the theme I'd developed in my comps. I was sitting at my desk at work and remember trembling outright for here was the seminal idea of my work presented at a major national conference. Several times I gently urged my advisor for a copy of the paper. I discussed it with her saying I was very interested in what they had presented at the conference. No paper was ever forthcoming. She avoided the topic, never telling me anything until eventually I dropped it. I decided to go forth as usual trying to convince myself that she has more integrity than to use my ideas without giving me any credit. We worked together well on a couple of different projects over the next year.

Maggie continued working on her proposal during the summer of 1994. She was still very much in the stage of sorting out her ideas and she was experiencing some difficulty in conceptualizing the proposal. She had another conference paper accepted that overlapped with her proposal and she felt she'd experienced some confusion in distinguishing between them. She met once with her advisor and discussed the first draft but after that her advisor had little time for her. Maggie was disappointed that the development of her proposal wasn't going as quickly as she'd hoped. She sought the advice of another committee member who did provide Maggie with some "wise counsel and direction."

That summer Maggie read and wrote in preparation for the fall semester. She wanted to have a draft of her proposal ready for her advisor's return in the fall. And after saving some extra hours at work, Maggie was able to enroll in a class being taught by one of her intended interviewees who was a guest lecturer that summer. Maggie admired this woman's work and she'd hoped to use the class as an ethnographic study of her performance techniques and methods, but it was all she could do to get through the class. It had been so long since she'd taken a performance class that she struggled somewhat with her technique.

Maggie invited the guest lecturer to dinner to discuss her research and she agreed to participate in Maggie's study. That summer Maggie contacted two other potential study participants and conducted preliminary interviews with each of them. She travelled to Chicago to meet with one woman and although Maggie found it quite stressful to leave her daughter for the first time, the preliminary interview was very successful. Maggie was relieved. After the summer class, Maggie headed back to the northwest, this time to present another conference paper. Maggie became quite ill during the conference and experienced relapses well into September. When her advisor returned in the fall Maggie felt a good deal of anger when her advisor, having had little time for her during the summer, made a "snide comment" to her about her proposal.

That fall Maggie worked on her proposal in the early mornings since her husband was working a 2 to 10 p.m. shift and she was often up late into the evenings with her daughter and it was during one of those morning work sessions that she began to solidify her problem statement.

I remember the feeling of elation at seeing the idea more clearly articulated. I had started a personal journal where I wrote about my ideas and sure enough, it came from those few writings. I was also reading Howard Becker's book on writing for social scientists and it helped me a great deal. I remember sitting on the floor of my living room with the paper in front of me, my tired eyes trying to focus, a cup of lukewarm coffee, books piled around, and my space heater going. I had to try and be quiet so as not to wake my daughter who isn't always an early riser but can be at the most inconvenient times! I remember the feeling of 'there it is at last'. At last I had a foundation to work from. At last it was revealed to me. I knew I was headed in a better direction.

She wouldn't be able to finish the proposal before the end of the semester but she knew she would have a good draft for the beginning of the semester in January (1995). It was during this period that Maggie volunteered to participate in this study and around the same time that her advisor mentioned to Maggie that she was revising the syllabus for her core course and she had been looking over the book Maggie had used to develop her thesis.

I just nodded and didn't say anything or think anything about it until I happened to speak with another student a few weeks ago. She's a good friend of mine and I confided in her explaining the difficulty I was having with my motivation and the nagging question in the back of my mind about my advisor's use of my exam concepts. She looked at me and calmly described the course she was taking from my advisor and described the very theme that I'd developed in my exams and said that my advisor hadn't mentioned me at all. I flipped out and cried hysterically. I asked my friend for a copy of the syllabus if she got a chance but I didn't want to include her in this mess.

Maggie experienced this moment of discovery as the lowest point in her program.

My lowest low was the moment I found out my advisor had used my concept in her class. There are no words to describe the immense disappointment, despair, and helplessness. My friend told me, trying to console me, people won't remember you for your dissertation. She is right, they won't remember me at all.

Maggie saw a copy of the syllabus that spring (April, 1995) and wrote to me:

I received the copy of the syllabus recently. Time for me now has little meaning. The syllabus is actually a wonderful outline for my dissertation. My advisor has been counselling me from it this semester. I can tell. So I am tormented now because anything I do will look like, Oh, you were so and so's student. And how do I approach her on this one? My advisor is instructing more than a dozen graduate students this semester on my topic that I developed in my exams and she hasn't mentioned that at all. She has acquired it for herself and feels it is hers to develop at will. We have a major communication problem here but I don't feel I'm in a position of power to address the issue. My advisor can make life hell. So now I'm stuck with a rather peculiar and disheartening position. Do I continue on? Change my topic? Walk away? The student has taught the instructor. I just wish I understood what to do. What is she thinking? What is her impression? I cannot, or perhaps I do not want to believe that she would be so callous. I know how strongly she feels about anyone touching her research.

So as you can tell the issue of trust is shattered here and my heart is heavy when it comes to my study. The love of the idea, the self-confidence gained from my exams and the orals, that final feeling of 'You really did well' is now at the bottom of my feet. The idea is displayed as someone else's or so it appears. In many ways I am resolved to finish the project and continue to use it in my own teaching, but I feel quite strongly that the academy is no place for me with power structures embedded in those few 'scholars' who are blind, manipulative and cruel. What kind of heritage does this pass on?

I hope some day to talk with my advisor about this but for now I just try and go on. I have another draft just about ready for her. What I am fighting now is that empty feeling and the fear that the passion for my study is dead. Now, there is no sense of failure, not even the fear of failure. Only helplessness. I believe I will be a stronger, more compassionate person when this is all resolved. For now, it's just getting through it.

Maggie did confide in her brother and sister about her advisor's use of her work but she had been reluctant to discuss it with her mother and doubts she ever will.

She is quite proud of me but this she would not understand and it would worry her incessantly. I would not like to cause her such pain. It has taken me awhile to realize that she is not really so strong anymore to really tell everything, so I am careful.

In fact, Maggie was reluctant to discuss the problem with anyone.

This is really something that the more I tell people, the worse I feel. Perhaps it is the feeling of alienation, I don't know. I think those friends of mine who are sympathetic also feel that feeling of helplessness. My friend said it best when she said, Just get it done. Naturally, I have also not spoken about this with my other committee members. I considered talking about it with my one committee member but I could not risk involving her and also jeopardize her relationship with my advisor. They are becoming fast colleagues and I know she will probably find out soon enough.

And she was particularly reluctant to convey even a hint of irritation to her advisor.

I always give her the impression she is in charge and I don't believe we have had any conflicts because I am learning how to maneuver around them. My advisor will watch for signs of revolt or conflict. If I do not provide her with any signs, especially of irritation, she is appeased.

Since these events Maggie has been struggling to regain the motivation to conduct her research. She had overcome a great deal of self-doubt to attain candidacy and just when she was beginning to develop a sense of herself as a scholar the rug was pulled out from under her.

The greatest unanticipated outcome is the use of my idea or what I thought was my idea. I think I have always been careful when it comes to my professors and realize that they can at any time take your work and use it, but I never anticipated it would happen. What my advisor did killed my spirit. Perhaps that is why I lack the motivation for the whole thing. Perhaps that is why I feel like walking away after it is all done and cutting ties. If I can just get it done. I feel my future within the discipline is over. I don't know that I want any part of academia. It has no tolerance for empathy and respect. It has no room for me.

I know also at play is my self-esteem here which I feel is suffering by way of my lost voice. I guess I feel my voice was taken from me with the use of my work. I feel silenced. I also feel that no one really wants to hear about it ... My husband continues to encourage me in my study but I feel he wants me to 'just get over it' and move on. I know there is value in being able to let go and I will do that in time, but for now the hurt and conflict still works within me. I feel very lonely most of the time. One of my friends said that I wouldn't even be remembered for my dissertation anyway and that it will all work out in the end. I guess the dissertation meant more to me than that. I guess it meant my accomplishments were realized and I was on my way to being an accomplished scholar. Will I publish more? I don't know, I don't know even if I want to. I feel alone in this entire venture and find that I don't even want to talk about it with anyone anymore. When someone asks me how it is going, I just say slow. I really don't have the desire to talk about it.

Ultimately, how can the experience be more meaningful if the very individuals you thought you could trust unwittingly betray you? I have the best of circumstances. I have a great committee. These women are wonderful, supportive, and they want me to succeed. It has helped me grow more self-confident. The entire experience has been positive up to a point. And for the most part there are still many positive points about my experience now. I just battle a sense of dead weight inside.

In the late summer of 1995, Maggie experienced yet another deep emotional blow with the death of her father.

Now, I do well to get up in the morning ... With the death of my father I feel very lost and empty. My life here has been so unstable that the stability I had at home was a lifeline. In the first of August my spirit was very restless to go home and I knew that I needed to go. My mother broke down on the phone and I arranged to leave mid-August. I am a deeply spiritual person and I believe God called us all home for that specific purpose. My siblings were all there which was quite a feat and all the grandchildren. My father had breathing and heart problems for quite some time and he was worn out. He was not moving around a lot but did not wish to go to a hospital. My mom tried to make him as comfortable as possible. My brother came to town for a wedding and my sister was on vacation in the area. They all left Sunday and I cried because I knew we were all standing on the edge of change. I stayed up with my father Sunday night and heard him labor well into the night. The next morning he didn't want to get up. My mom kept checking on him and he finally did get up to shave. She left him for a second and he was gone. I ran to his side but his eyes were empty and yet he was still warm. I know that I was supposed to be there and I know that he felt at last at peace to go home. My mom could not have handled it alone. Dad was a wonderful man and I am fortunate to have had such a father. I am also fortunate that he felt at peace to leave when he did and he considered me strong enough to handle it. Amazingly, so did my siblings as they both confided that they did not feel they could have handled it. The memories of that week and the shadows of the mountains which I dearly long for haunt me now because I feel so lost in my own direction. I feel like I am standing 'still' and watching everyone else pass by. I wonder when I will begin living again.

Later Maggie wrote about her sense of "standing on the edge of change" and what that meant to her.

Like all change this change too will take a long time to occur. I have no concept of what it will be, I only have more questions. That day as my family departed I knew we would never all be the same again. A chapter in our lives was closing. The next chapter will review itself slowly.

Throughout the fall months, feeling very withdrawn and empty, Maggie struggled with the loss of her father and with "just plain old loss of direction."

I am trying to plod ahead and make myself go to work every day although it has been stressful. I am looking forward to a few days off for Thanksgiving and am trying to get some stuff together for Christmas. We will be flying home to see my mom for Christmas. It will be good and it will be difficult. I know all pain takes time.

In a telephone conversation (January, 1996) Maggie told me she had begun taking medication to help her deal with her depression. However, after learning she was pregnant with her second child she stopped taking the medication.

Throughout their correspondence the women described a number of attributes characteristic of effective advisors and advising strategies. I identified six categories into which these attributes could be classified, including subject knowledge, work habits, personal attributes, advising practices and attitudes toward students. When aggregated in this fashion, these attributes represent an ideal -- not the sum characteristics any student, or at least any of the women in this study, would realistically expect to find in an advisor.

The Women's Perceptions of Attributes of an Effective Advisor

Subject Knowledge

  • demonstrates expertise in subject;
  • shows genuine interest in subject;
  • has interesting ideas; is someone you can learn from.

Work Habits

  • organized;
  • attentive to detail;
  • efficient: gets things done; attends to deadlines.

Personal Attributes

  • bright;
  • enthusiastic;
  • patient;
  • compassionate; empathetic;
  • displays integrity;
  • flexible;
  • sensitive;
  • trustworthy;
  • forthright when dealing with conflicts.

Advising Practices

  • provides clear expectations;
  • recommends readings;
  • makes time for the student; reviews student work in a timely fashion;
  • creates an atmosphere conducive to learning; engages students' ideas; knows how to inspire and encourage students;
  • challenges students to think more deeply and to understand different perspectives;
  • provides constructive comments and appropriate feedback, including positive feedback when appropriate;
  • provide advice, wise counsel and direction to students;
  • mutually negotiates tasks and schedules;
  • helps students to negotiate the system;
  • encourages participation in professional organizations;
  • provides letters of recommendation;
  • guides students in making grant applications.

Attitudes toward Students

  • wants student to succeed;
  • believes in the student's ability;
  • trusts the student will do what needs to be done;
  • respectful of students needs, efforts, interests and choices;
  • nurtures the student's self-image as an emerging scholar:
    • supports students' interests and passions;
    • nurtures students' sense of ownership of their work;
    • fosters an egalitarian relationship that is neither intrusive nor presumptuous;
    • appropriately acknowledges students' contributions and accomplishments;
    • sees the student as a colleague, not a competitor and uses authority and power to serve student interests;
    • maintains appropriate role boundaries:
    • student's role as an emerging researcher is clearly defined;
    • advisor's self-image is not that of a parent, but a colleague who expresses support and confidence in the student's abilities;
    • does not expect to be 'parented' by the student;
  • able/willing to negotiate a compromise in the face of disagreement or conflict;
  • assumes responsibility for political or interpersonal issues that arise among committee members and intervenes on student's behalf;
  • shows respect for the multiple role demands placed on women as both scholars and mothers.

Other factors the women described as contributing to positive relationships with their advisors included sharing common interests, shared perspectives of about research paradigms, a mutually flexible approach to the relationship in which both members were able to accommodate a range of tasks and a mutual respect for one another that culminated in a relationship that was professional, collegial and egalitarian.

The women also described attributes of their advisor/advisee relationships that added stress to their doctoral experiences which I classified in three categories, including personal attributes, advising practices and relationship management.

The Women's Perceptions of Factors that Diminish Advisor/Advisee Relationships

Personal Attributes

  • cold; impersonal
  • autocratic
  • pompous; overbearing
  • gruff

Advising Practices

  • hypercritical
  • unavailable; does not respond in a timely way to student requests or messages

Attitudes Toward Students

  • manipulative
  • lack of respect for alternate perspectives of research paradigms
  • wants to shape student thinking in accordance with one's own views
  • controlling, resulting in friction when students speak their minds
  • abusive and cruel: belittles students; makes snide remarks
  • intimidating: attacks students' beliefs and is constantly testing the student
  • uses positional power and authority to silence the student
  • view emotions as a weakness
  • blurred role boundaries in which the student provides an audience for the advisor's personal and/or departmental issues
  • creates conflict among committee members

It should be noted that none of the women in this study characterized relationships with their advisors as falling solely within a single domain, either positive or negative. Even Maggie, despite the negative experience with her advisor, readily acknowledged positive attributes her advisor presented under other circumstances.