Passed: March 2022 (15th)

What do you want? / Why do you want it? 

We are proposing a two-pronged approach to improve and formalise the sometimes strained and often one-sided relationship between post-graduate researchers (PGRs) and their supervisors. One aspect of this, 1), would see the empowerment of students through increasing their knowledge about their situation, their statutory rights and procedures they can invoke in order to resolve unfair treatment or more generally improve their circumstances [See Appendix, Section 1]. This would take the form of a) an induction week talk from their respective post-graduate reps [See Appendix, Section 1a], alongside b) a pre-9 month transfer viva form that is confidential between the student and the PGR tutors [See Appendix, Section 1b]. Second, 2), we propose the implementation of a "student-supervisor agreement" form that would provide a documented record of agreements and boundaries defined between students and their Supervisors early in their project. This could be continually renewed and assessed each year, with oversight from an independent 3rd party within the Union and/or other groups within the University. We hope that these suggestions will bring about a less exploitative and fairer relationship between students and their supervisors and cumulatively enrich the student experience [See Appendix, Section 2]. 

While most PGRs will encounter issues with their supervisors at some point, these are usually easily resolved. However, a significant number of PGRs encounter longer-term issues with their supervisors, which stem from the unusual position that PGRs occupy – not quite students and not quite employees. The lack of formal protection by employment law means that some supervisors treat their PGRs in a way that would not be tolerated in the workplace, including a) unfair expectations regarding working time and holidays and b) a lack of respect and fair treatment. There is already a strong equality and inclusion basis for doing this anyway, as it will allow students to specify upfront any family or religious circumstances that are likely to influence their working patterns. For instance, if PGRs need to collect children from school at certain times, cannot work during religious festivals or need to return to their home nation during certain periods of the year. Any specific requirements can be agreed at the start of the project, including any mitigation for time lost to other activities. While PGRs have options for formal recourse, most PGRs are unwilling to complain about their supervisors because they are understandably concerned that their supervisors will be able to identify the source of the complaints and will either explicitly or implicitly penalise them. As a result, some PGRs feel trapped in essentially exploitative relationships with their supervisors. Such a dynamic can be detrimental to a PGRs mental wellbeing and quality of life. While this is a sector-wide issue in the UK, and scarcely unique to FBS, we need to identify ways to empower PGRs to overcome these issues within the FBS context.

Appendix:

Further detail on the problem & our proposed solutions 

1) Empowering PGR choices 

In many cases PGRs hold their own funding, and therefore do not need to remain with a supervisor if the relationship turns negative. However, most PGRs do not realise that they have this power, and can remain at the University under a different supervisor. Indeed, this does not apply only to cases with supervisory issues, but also to PGRs who are not enjoying their project. We feel that creating an environment in which the project and supervisor choices available to PGRs are more openly discussed will empower students to make changes to their supervision if needed. Indeed, we think that even knowing that the option exists might be sufficient to resolve some issues, by empowering PGRs to ‘negotiate from a position of strength’ with their supervisors. 

a) Induction week talk by PGR reps 

We feel that a talk for all new starters by the PGR reps during induction week, in which the full choices available to students during their project are made clear would be very helpful in empowering students to change supervisor or project if needed. 

b) Pre-transfer viva feedback form 

Clearly, if students are going to change supervisors (for whatever reason), it would be best to do this before or at the transfer viva, to give them the best chance of adapting their project with a new supervisor. We would like to see students encouraged to think more carefully about their satisfaction with both supervisor and project ahead of the transfer viva. Currently, students are asked about this during the transfer viva but only at the end of a stressful hour of questioning, and by direct colleagues of the supervisor. Under those circumstances, it is difficult for students to make suggestions regarding changes. 

Instead, we would like to see students asked pre-emptively by the Graduate Office to complete a simple feedback form, which would go straight to the PGRs progression tutor. If any action is required, the progression tutors could then discuss this with the PGRs ahead of the transfer viva. 

2) Formalising staff and student expectations 

We suggest the development of a ‘supervisor-PGR agreement’ form, which both parties will be required to sign at the end of induction week. In this form, supervisors and PGRs will be asked to formally discuss and clarify their individual expectations regarding working conditions at the start of the project, which we believe could help to prevent issues arising. This might include, for instance, agreeing a particular working pattern, either towards or away from the normative ‘9 am – 5 pm’ pattern with an emphasis on meeting between the core hours of ‘10 am – 4 pm’ as supported by Athena Swan and officially adopted by FBS. We think that having such agreements formalised in writing is paramount as PGR working arrangements are often ambiguous or absent, for example, working hours are not explicitly outlined in the PGR contract terms and conditions. 

We suggest the involvement of a third party, for example a member of LUU or the progression tutor, to assess the form to make sure that entitlements are being met and agreements and commitments adhered to. While an ongoing conversation about the working-pattern is encouraged during monthly supervision meetings, this form should be formally evaluated during the already-established annual progress review meetings where updates can be made. Simultaneously, the form can also be used to highlight whether commitments are being kept. Any updates should then be reviewed by the third party to ensure that changes are in-keeping with faculty standards and that disagreements that have been flagged are resolved. 

We feel that making both parties sign such a form will explicitly encourage a healthy working pattern of 37.5 hours per week. This will discourage supervisors and colleagues from pressurising PGRs in to work excessively long hours or weekends. We look forward to receiving your comments and advice on how to implement this for FBS within the current and future academic years.