Mentoring research scholars is the weakest and unattended aspect of the higher education system in India. This gap is acutely felt because the cultural and regional diversity of both, teachers and students in our academic institutions is growing. Bureaucratic rules hardly cover the range of issues that this situation throws up. Interpersonal adjustment and socio-cultural background do have an effect on professional relationships.

 

The complexities of social science research further compounds the ambiguities because skill sets and abilities required for social science research are manifold and non-linear.  In the Indian context, PhD supervision has been left to the discretion of the faculty and not much is found in the public discourse on research except of course, caste or gender discrimination. This, in my view, is one of the chief causes for the weaknesses in the  quality of research in this country. In the following, I am sharing some thoughts on the supervisor student relationship as it is played out in social science research.

 

Whether it is descriptive, interpretative, explanatory and/or an evaluation, much of sociological research entails examining and analyzing social realities without resort to mathematical models or standardized formulae. Except where statistical tests and correlations are proposed, sociology involves research under lived conditions through the study of narratives and viewpoints of the people concerned, through observation, through the study of texts and documents and/or, through the study of selected quantitative parameters of human activity. The same research problem when approached through different methods and purposes may yield varying dimensions of the thing being studied. Spouse selection on matrimonial portals could be studied descriptively through profile analysis, or through interviews with profile holders and spouse selection could be explained with respect to variables such as caste, religion, class, education and gender.  Evaluation of the role of internet technology and matrimonial portals in terms of their retrogressive or progressive effect on spouse selection is also possible. So great clarity of thinking and focus is required to be able to delineate and pursue a research problem. Also it is necessary to check the viability of a research problem through pilot study before embarking on it, as some sources of information may not be accessible or may simply not be open to interviewing. This is not just about the academic relevance of the research objectives, but a considered judgement involved as to which methods will be appropriate for answering the research questions raised by the scholar.

 

I see the role of mentoring to be crucial at this point where from a broad range of possible approaches to the research problem, the supervisor has to suggest something that will be most suited to the student’s skill sets and purposes. Though PhD is a test of the research student’s ability to carry out independent research, the supervisor’s experience is paramount in shaping the research objectives, without of course discouraging the student who could propose bookish or unrealistic topic for study. In the natural and physical sciences, PhD students come in through projects where the objectives are predetermined, but in the sociology departments where a significant portion of doctoral research is individually chosen, conscious appraisal of the student’s aptitude will be critical to achieve an exact mix of originality and past experience in formulating the research questions.

 

Secondly, we have to talk about the issues around linguistic ability which is critical for writing in social science research. PhD theses in sociology are mostly written in English even while the data collected may be in any of the regional languages. The transition of information and narratives to data for analysis is another bottleneck in sociological research; good fieldworkers need not be good writers and vice versa. Facilitating the student to express the richness and nuances of the data that has been collected in English is not just a matter of linguistic ability. It is possible to find students in the social sciences who cannot write well in English, but who are intuitively perceptive or possess the ability to detect patterns and analyze them. Mentoring at this stage involves assessing the quantum of the data collected and strengthening the morale of the student who is to enter the more treacherous stage of writing the thesis. The student has to be motivated to bring on record every relevant piece of information from the field through several rounds of discussions, in which she/he is asked to present her field experiences and its highlights as well as answer questions before writing them down. This process could instill confidence about the availability of data that could then be rendered in writing.

 

Thirdly, we have to draw attention to work culture. Research work requires a work pattern of sustained engagement in which the supervisor and student have to co-ordinate their time and effort and in the university setting where a faculty member supervises 7-8 PhD students, this coordination is absolutely essential to the quality of the output and the relationship. Very little is written about work culture in academic institutions, especially about those in the public sector. For Instance, take the issue of meeting deadlines in the submission of drafts. Deadlines produce stress for the student, but it is necessary for the supervisors that the submission of drafts are made as planned in order to  manage their own time and organize other work.  Reading and writing speed of students vary widely within the university and it is difficult to impose standardized time frames for students. Often I have noticed that students who have not completed their work go into silence and stop communicating. Even when the students are asked to fix their own deadline based on their pace, there is a hesitation to inform the supervisor and seek an extension of the deadline, because they enter the zone of uncertainty in the writing stage and are unsure whether they are getting it right. Rarely have I noticed low spirits during fieldwork as data collection is the most jubilant phase of research. Students face mental blocks when they seek to reduce their real time observations and analysis in written form in a coherent manner. Instead of leaving them to face the consequences of their delays, some prodding will help. Though missed deadline is major irritant to the supervisor who has several other commitments, not all non-communicative research scholars are insincere. Some of them genuinely experience mental blocks or are stuck in low self-esteem. The responses to such deadlocks vary in terms of gender, class and cultural background of the students. In the absence of counseling services in academic schools, a lot of this is handled by supervisors though it is not spoken about. Writing PhD thesis is an art and does require an ability to synthesize information, theory and references that cannot be imparted, but only shown. Mentoring in the writing stage may call for frequent group meetings and discussion.

 

The process of honing the capabilities of research scholars necessitates a balance between sensitivity to cultural background and a professional distance; this is not always an easy balance to obtain. Crossing the border in personal involvement with the student has other pitfalls; the point here is that what we require is an awareness of the student’s situation without intensive involvement.

 

The supervisor student relation varies with the perception and role expectations of the parties to the relationship. In a hierarchical society like India, role expectations could cause immense pressure to the student when the emphasis on outcome and results is excessive, when the supervisors seek constant reverence and subordination viewing originality as a threat, and when supervisors hold on to stereotypes about student’s abilities. On the other hand,  insincerity, misuse of rights and lack of communication on the part of the student could create a strain for the supervisor. Furthermore, the dynamic between supervisor and student is affected by the comparisons made by the student with his batchmates and their supervisors. As it is still considered to be an interpersonal matter unique to the dyadic relation between the teacher and student, there  is no training for research supervision; a lot is learnt on the job by faculty who simply apply their personal experiences in mentoring. Tips from colleagues does come during conversations and chats, but it is always an aside to the main discussion. Interpersonal issues change with the times and social media has also played a role in sharing and It is high time that these discussions are explicitly discussed even though informally.

 

The institutional response to the heterogeneity of the student population in the higher education institutions in India is restricted to providing for remedial classes in English and grievance redressal mechanisms after conflicts flare up. In progressive departments, seeking a change of supervisor or shifting students to another faculty is a smooth process. In many other institutions, however, it is ridden with friction, conflict and mistrust between colleagues.

 

The absence of qualitative and informal measures at the departmental level in our universities is a lacuna. Mentorship of freshers by senior researchers and occasions for weekly, informal group meetings of research groups within a department have to be encouraged. Promoting semi-academic and extra- curricular interaction among faculty and research scholars will also improve the research experience and learning derived.

 

V Sujatha is Professor at the Centre for the Study of social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. Views expressed are personal.

 

This article is part of a Confluence series called “Mentor-Mentee Relationships in Academia: Nature, Problems and Solutions”.